Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ENERGY

Oil Wells (Exploration and Appraisal)

Mr. Hayward: asked the Secretary of State for Energy how many exploration and appraisal oil wells were drilled in 1978, 1982 and 1983, respectively.

The Minister of State, Department of Energy (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): The number of exploration and appraisal oil and gas wells drilled offshore in each year are as follows:
1978, 62; 1982, 111; 1983, 128.

Mr. Hayward: In the light of that good news on the increase in the number of wells being drilled and appraised, what increase in employment does that represent, and does my right hon. Friend expect that increase to continue over the next three years?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: It is significant that employment offshore between 1982 and 1983 rose from just under 22,000 to nearly 29,000, which shows a big increase in activity. Onshore work is also encouraging and will depend on how competitive British firms are in getting orders.

Dr. Godman: As most Clyde fishermen fish only in and around that water and hence have little or no experience of the incursion of offshore oil operations, what consultations have taken place with their associations on offshore activity in the Firth of Clyde?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: My Department has regular consultations with representatives of the oil industry. I am sure that specific discussions on the Clyde have taken place, but I shall make inquiries and write to the hon. Gentleman about it.

Energy Efficiency Campaign

Mr. Wallace: asked the Secretary of State for Energy by what criteria the success of the energy efficiency campaign is to be measured.

Mr. Chapman: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will report progress on his energy efficiency campaign.

The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Peter Walker): As the House knows, it is estimated that 20 per cent. of current energy consumption is being wasted. The

campaign will be judged by the progress in eliminating that wastage. Since it was launched last October, 10 early morning meetings have been held with a total of 3,000 senior executives, and the energy efficiency office has considerably extended the scope of its activities.

Mr. Wallace: Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the best means of judging the campaign's progress would be to monitor activity in the energy conservation industry? Has the right hon. Gentleman's Department any means of doing that?

Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir. We are studying a range of monitoring methods and we are fixing targets to see how monitoring goes compared with those targets for a range of industrial activities. We hope that 10,000 active energy managers will have been appointed by industry by the summer of 1985.

Mr. Chapman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that improved energy efficiency is one of the most effective ways of increasing British industry's competitiveness? Does he further agree that since the first great leap in energy prices 10 years ago we have been some way behind our competitors in energy efficiency?

Mr. Walker: Yes, it is true to say that in the last decade a range of our competitors have improved their energy efficiency by between 25 and 30 per cent., whereas our improvement has been about 16 per cent. I agree that this is an area in which substantial savings can be made for the benefit of industry.

Mr. Rost: Does my right hon. Friend agree that to use the performance of other European countries as a yardstick is to show that there is still a great deal for us to do?

Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir.

Energy Efficiency Office

Mr. Orme: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list the benefits to the domestic consumer of the activities of the energy efficiency office.

Mr. Cowans: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what further proposals he has for improving energy conservation in domestic households.

Mr. Ray Powell: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list the benefits to the domestic consumer of the activities of the energy efficiency office.

Mr. Rowlands: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list the benefits to the domestic consumer of the activities of the energy efficiency office.

Mr. Peter Walker: A major energy efficiency office objective is to generate a climate in which householders are able to use energy in the home more efficiently, thus obtaining better value for money spent on fuel.

Mr. Orme: I am pleased to hear the Secretary of State say that, because it would appear that everything has been concentrated on the industrial scene. What has happened to the working party on energy conservation in low-income households, which was set up by a junior Minister previously in his office and about which we were promised a statement before Christmas? When will we get that report?

Mr. Walker: First, we have arranged for 90 per cent. grants to be available to low-income households. I am encouraging voluntary insulation groups and I am glad to


say that there are now 80 of them employing about 1,000 people, and they have insulated about 80,000 dwellings. I am also pleased to say that annually 350,000 to 400,000 homes are being insulated which is, of course, a considerable improvement on the figures in past years. As the right hon. Gentleman knows from recent debates, the Government are also spending about £380 million on helping low-income families with their energy costs.

Mr. Cowans: Is the Minister aware that the United Kingdom is one of the few European countries that offer no tax incentives to instal energy-saving devices in their homes? Is he aware that, apart from loft insulation, no other incentive is available, and that even the loft insulation grant is becoming a rariety because of the cuts in local government expenditure? When will he remedy this state of affairs and give householders some real incentive to save energy?

Mr. Walker: A whole range of grants are being made available. For example, in 1982–83, £11 million was spent on grants to elderly and disabled people, and £2 million currently is going to finance voluntary insulation projects.

Mr. Ray Powell: Is the Minister aware that a 15 per cent. tax is to be imposed on the insulation of properties? Is he aware that the insulation of an ordinary semi-detached house costs from £300 to £400 now, but that that figure will increase by nearly £100 because of the tax? Does he believe that that is an incentive to householders to insulate their properties?

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman exaggerates in that, as he well knows, a considerable volume of insulation is on a do-it-yourself basis, and, of course, that is not affected.

Mr. Rowlands: What sort of energy efficiency office is it that does not know, for example, that the Secretary of State for Wales has frozen and stopped every home insulation grant? Has the right hon. Gentleman consulted the Secretary of State for Wales, and other Government Departments, about expenditure on such grants?

Mr. Walker: I suppose that it is the same as the people on the Opposition Benches who are unaware that, for the coming year, the Secretary of State for Wales has substantially increased the budget in this area.

Mr. Rost: When will householders have the opportunity to benefit from the energy labelling scheme for domestic appliances which many European countries have already instigated?

Mr. Walker: I cannot give a direct reply to that question. I can say that at present the marketeers that I appointed to look into energy efficiency have made a number of suggestions in this sphere, including a proposal for some form of grading relating to the energy efficiency of individual houses, from particulars given by building societies and estate agents. All these matters are being looked at urgently.

Mr. Wallace: Following the imposition of 15 per cent. VAT, does the Secretary of State agree that the lump sum £69 grant under the home insulation scheme has effectively been devalued, and does he propose to take any steps to maintain its value in real terms?

Mr. Walker: We shall certainly continue to review the incentive given under the scheme. I repeat that, on home insulation on a do-it-yourself basis, the tax base has not changed.

Mr. Madden: Is it not daft that the Minister's efforts to conserve energy are being undermined by other Government Departments, which have seen fit to reduce home improvement grants and to impose a new tax on home improvements? Is it not about time that the Government realised that launching a co-ordinated national conservation campaign would not only help people to keep warmer more cheaply, but would make a major dent in unemployment?

Mr. Walker: I agree that the whole range of energy efficiency proposals, which are taking place on an increasing scale, are of assistance in providing employment. In housing, a whole range of measures have been taken which will lead to more money being invested in such sectors.

Gas Supplies (Rural Areas)

Mr. Yeo: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will estimate the proportion of gas which is marketed in rural areas.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I regret that statistics are not kept in a form to allow a comparison to be made between gas supplies to rural and urban areas.

Mr. Yeo: Notwithstanding that, I am sure that it is in everyone's interests for more gas to be sold in rural areas, and for that to happen more households should be connected to the mains supply. Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the village of Great Waldingfield in my constituency, although many households are already on the mains supply, other residents have been told that they must pay £700 for connection? Will my right hon. Friend do everything possible to encourage gas boards to keep to a minimum the capital charge to potential gas customers in rural areas for connection?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: My hon. Friend knows that a statutory duty is laid on the British Gas Corporation to supply if the house is within 25 yd of the main. Beyond that, British Gas and local area offices are prepared to look at different schemes to see whether it is economic to do so. I understand that Eastern gas is already in touch with my hon. Friend over this, and I hope that a solution can be found.

Mrs. Currie: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in large parts of my constituency of south Derbyshire, which is neither remote nor backward, including the village of Findern, to which I am about to move, there is no gas supply? Is he also aware that, despite my protestations to the chairman of the gas board, he seems more willing to chat us up at luncheon than to install mains? Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a social need in remote and rural areas for gas supplies, just as there is for telephones and for payments to hill sheep farmers?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am not aware of the details of the village to which my hon. Friend referred, although I do not doubt that she is correct. I hope that she will pursue this matter with the area office. British Gas is keen to sell more gas, and I am sure that it will discuss the matter with her constructively, as I should like to do on any occasion.

Mr. Rowlands: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the former Secretary of State, now the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he was taking the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Bill through the House, swore that private gas supplies would reach many rural areas? How many applications has he had from private suppliers to supply rural areas, whether or not in the constituency of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie)?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The real point is whether or not it is commercial to provide such supplies. The opportunity is there, but has been so only relatively recently. In the meantime, we should see how the discussions with British Gas go.

Coal Output

Mr. Eggar: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what is the current coal output on an annualised basis.

Mr. Peter Walker: Without the overtime ban and strike action, deep mined coal production would have been about 101·4 million tonnes in 1983–84, and opencast production around 14 million tonnes.

Mr. Eggar: Has my right hon. Friend seen reports that industrial gas and export contracts are being imperilled as a direct result of the industrial action? Is not the likely outcome of the strike that the NCB will have to close more rather than fewer pits?

Mr. Walker: I am concerned that there have been losses in the export trade, as it is only recently that Britain has been able to be a net exporter of coal. That trade is being severely damaged. I am concerned that the good progress that we have been making in applications for the coal conversion scheme has virtually stopped, and that must also have a serious impact on the future of the coal industry.

Mr. Barron: Does not the present dispute in the coal mining industry relate directly to the 4·4 million tonnes, and is it not likely that if the Coopers and Lybrand report were to be implemented in the electricity supply industry, with prices being reduced, people would use that 4·4 million tonnes and we could do without the present dispute?

Mr. Walker: In fairness, there is substantial coal burn, and considerable encouragement is given to coal conversion. This contrasts sharply, for example, with the recently stated position in France, where the French Government have announced that they intend to reduce coal production by 40 per cent. and the numbers of miners by 50 per cent.

Mr. Skeet: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the current market dictates the need for much lower annual coal production? Does he agree also that the National Union of Mineworkers is doing its best to destroy the mines?

Mr. Walker: There are divided views about that union. My hon. Friend knows that the majority of miners at coalfields who have had the opportunity to vote, have voted to stay at work and not to strike. We cannot generalise about the NUM. Unwarranted damage is being done to the industry.

Mr. Redmond: Does the Secretary of State agree that it is not the NUM's action but the short-term policies

pursued by the Government, including Conservative Back Benchers, that are causing long-term damage to the industry and this country's needs for the future?

Mr. Walker: Any Government who, during this period, support £800 million a year of capital investment in an industry can hardly be seen to be neglecting its future.

Mr. Ward: How can my right hon. Friend justify the enormous sums now being offered in redundancy payments to relatively young miners when it appears that the NUM's leadership is determined to ruin the industry? That expenditure can only mean increased cost to the taxpayer.

Mr. Walker: I defend the decision to ensure that miners who suffer because of the closure of uneconomic mines are generously treated, and I do not regret that decision. I believe that by any measure, in this country or worldwide, we are treating them very generously.

Mr. Welsh: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that current total output is insufficient to meet the demands in the next four years, when oil supplies will have been reduced by at least 25 per cent? What is he doing to ensure that pits are kept open to produce the coal that the nation will require in four years,' time?

Mr. Walker: Having heard the hon. Gentleman in a recent debate, I believe that he knows from all his experience under all parties in Government that pit closures are not new. Closing the 20 most uneconomic pits, which are producing coal at four times the cost of the most economic pits, and at the same time investing £2 million a day in capital investment in the industry means safeguarding the future.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: Is my right hon. Friend aware that certain west midlands manufacturing concerns are desperately short of foundry coke? What steps can he take to ensure that supplies get through to those commercial interests?

Mr. Walker: At present there are substantial coke stocks. They were built up considerably because of the lack of relative demand. I hope that the people picketing those suppliers will give careful consideration to the likely loss of jobs and the possible loss of firms if coke supplies are not available.

Mr. Lofthouse: Will the Secretary of State put the record straight for his hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Ward) and tell him that the miners are asking not for redundancy payments but for jobs?

Mr. Walker: As the hon. Gentleman knows better than most, under both Governments substantial numbers of miners have voluntarily asked to take advantage of the redundancy payments scheme on an early retirement basis. During the debate last week a number of Opposition Members defended the rights of miners to retire early and take advantage of such payments.

Mr. Lyell: Is it not the case that the last 12 million tonnes of the 100 million tonnes referred to by my right hon. Friend are produced at a loss of more than £250 million a year? Could not that same amount of coal be produced more cheaply, efficiently and effectively at other pits which would better employ many of the miners who are currently employed in the old pits?

Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir. That is why the Government recently gave authority for £400 million to be invested in a new pit at Asfordby.

Mr. Foulkes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the NCB agreed to reduce coal imports to what it described as the "irreducible minimum"? Why has the right hon. Gentleman therefore allowed coal imports into Scotland to double in the past two years?

Mr. Walker: Coal imports are virtually at an all-time low. The hon. Gentleman should recognise that we are not importing a great deal of the coal that is available at much lower prices, and that we are net exporters of coal.

Mr. Stokes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many British coal merchants in the midlands are reluctantly having to import supplies, sometimes from as far away as Morocco? What long-term effect will that have on the domestic industry?

Mr. Walker: It is important that the domestic industry should produce coal as efficiently as possible and take advantage of the hundreds of millions of pounds of new capital that has been invested in the industry.

Mr. Benn: How much extra coal has been imported since the beginning of the dispute, and at what price?

Mr. Walker: I have no details, but referring to the dispute, which the right hon. Gentleman does so often, compared to his record, the miners have no right to have a dispute.

Mr. Holt: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the futility of the current strike is underlined impressively by the decision of the ICI board not to proceed with the conversion of fuel from oil to coal? That will deny many miners a living in the future which they otherwise would have enjoyed.

Mr. Walker: Yes Sir. I suppose that the ICI scheme was the biggest single project of conversion to coal that the country has witnessed for many years. It was encouraged by substantial Government grants. It would have used 450,000 tonnes of coal a year. I regret that the current industrial action has meant that that decision has been put off.

Mr. Eadie: As the right hon. Gentleman has given the House a long list of the problems associated with the mining industry, why does he not intervene in the present industrial dispute? Secondly, as he has told us about France cutting its coal production and halving manpower in the industry, will he tell the House what France's total coal production and manpower in mining are?

Mr. Walker: On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, with all that is on offer at the moment in terms of pay, the manner in which closures will be treated and investment, I should be happy if the miners were given the opportunity to express their view in a ballot. I will explain simply the position in France. The Socialist Government came in with coal production at 20 million tonnes. Their target was to increase it to 30 million, but they have now decided to reduce it to 10 million.

Mr. Orme: In view of the increasingly serious position, and as the Secretary of State is the responsible Minister, what action has he taken this weekend to consult Mr. MacGregor and the National Union of Mineworkers?

Mr. Walker: As the responsible Minister, I am aware from the votes that have already taken place that the majority of miners would like the chance to vote. It is time that the Opposition supported those miners.

Power Stations

Mr. Conlan: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on Government policy on the construction of power stations.

The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Giles Shaw): The construction of new power stations is subject to statutory consent and approvals. In England and Wales, the Central Electricity Generating Board is responsible for bringing forward proposals for new power stations in order to discharge its duty to develop and maintain an efficient and economical system of electricity supply.

Mr. Conlan: Is the Minister aware that, with the end of the work for Heysham 2 and Torness in sight, and in the absence of new orders, the industry is again approaching a crisis? Will the Minister reaffirm that it is the Government's intention to proceed with a steady ordering programme for the industry? Is he further aware that in the absence of such a programme the specialist teams will break up, the industry will decline and the country will then become dependent upon American or other overseas technology for future electricity generation?

Mr. Shaw: I fully understand the hon. Gentleman's concern about the future of the construction industry associated with power generation plant, but he will be aware, just I am, that this must be regarded as a matter for the CEGB in reviewing its future capacity requirements. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the CEGB will be giving the greatest possible allowance to the importance of the generating construction industry.

Sir Peter Emery: What is my hon. Friend doing to encourage the CEGB to get on with the commercial construction of a fast breeder reactor? Ten years ago we were way ahead of the French, but they are now many moons ahead of us. It is about time we did something to catch up again.

Mr. Shaw: I hesitate to take issue with my hon. Friend, but I do not believe that the French are as far ahead of us as he imagines. The memorandum of understanding signed earlier this year by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it very clear that the pooling of technological information and the results of the considerable experience gained at Dounreay and other places are some of the benefits which the French, among others, may hope to share.

Mr. Benn: Will the Minister give a categorial assurance that plutonium from British nuclear power stations will not be sold to the United States of America for use in the American nuclear weapons programme?

Mr. Shaw: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that that question has been put and answered by my predecessor and others in recent years. It is clear that the arrangements with the United States preclude the use of that material for defence purposes.

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: Do not current events in the coal industry underline the fact that we should not rely so


much on generating electricity from coal, but should ensure that our nuclear programme proceeds without interruption?

Mr. Shaw: I must agree with my hon. Friend. As the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Mr. Conlan) is aware, the nuclear programme has been largely dependent on the efficient production and use of the construction industry and is coming on stream to time and cost.

Concessionary Coal Scheme

Mr. John Townend: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will now answer questions about the concessionary coal scheme.

Mr. Giles Shaw: Concessionary coal is supplied under the terms of an agreement negotiated between the National Coal Board and the unions. The concessionary coal payments scheme is a Government scheme to reimburse to the National Coal Board certain costs of supplying concessionary coal to redundant mineworkers under the terms of the relevant agreement.

Mr. Townend: Does my hon. Friend agree that the cost in retail prices of the miners' concessionary coal scheme is a matter of public interest? Does he further agree that there is growing resentment among many other employees because they are asked to pay increasing sums in taxation for their company cars while miners' benefits in kind remain completely tax free?

Mr. Shaw: I am well aware that my hon. Friend is right in saying that there is much unease about the prices charged for concessionary coal and its supply to miners, but, equally, he will be well aware that it is a very well-established benefit in kind, which has been supported for many years by Governments of both persuasions. The arrangements made are variable area by area and are the subject of individual discussion and negotiation between the area boards and the NUM.

Mr. Allen McKay: Will the Under-Secretary give a categorical assurance that there will be no interference with the historic concessionary coal allowance? Does he agree that the question asked by the hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) is one of the most dangerous to ask at this sensitive time?

Mr. Shaw: I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks. He will note that in the orders passed last Wednesday provision was made for the continuation of such schemes.

Mr. Jim Spicer: Regardless of the merits of the concessionary coal scheme, does it apply while miners are on strike?

Mr. Shaw: The availability of coal will, of course, be a matter of the freedom of supply.

Mr. Hardy: Would the Minister be surprised if those working in the mining industry or dependent on it in the mining communities decided that while Bridlington returns a Member of Parliament with a rather nasty attitude they would be reluctant to continue to spend money in the resort that bears the constituency's name?

Mr. Shaw: I do not know which resort is the last refuge of a scoundrel, but the hon. Gentleman must accept that

my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) has a perfect right to look most closely at the finances of any scheme undertaken by the NCB.

Coal Industry

Mr. Tim Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what has been the increase in productivity in the coal mining industry since 1974.

Mr. Peter Walker: Overall output per man-shift in 1974–75 was only 2·29 tonnes, due to the effect of strike action. In 1982–83 it was 2·44 tonnes, representing an increase of just under 7 per cent. The increase between 1972–73 and 1982–83 was only 4·7 per cent. for the 10-year period.

Mr. Smith: How does the first figure, which amounts to less than 1 per cent. per year, compare with what was actually agreed by the parties to the "Plan for Coal" in 1974?

Mr. Walker: The "Plan for Coal" envisaged increases in productivity of 4 per cent. per annum. As I have slated, the increase was 4·7 per cent. over 10 years.

Mr. Haynes: Does the Secretary of State agree that it was not a bad effort by the lads in the industry, in terms of the figures for productivity? One has only to look at the heaps of coal around the nation. Will the Secretary of State have a word with his Cabinet colleagues, including that lass at No. 10, with a view to getting industry back to work? We will then see the coal stocks used up, and at the same time the lads will produce the coal that the nation needs.

Mr. Walker: All parties to the "Plan for Coal", including the National Union of Mineworkers, must be disappointed that, in the past 10 years, the improvement in productivity has been only what they hoped would take place every year. Productivity has been disappointing.

Mr. Bill Walker: Is not the closing of mines which, in the eyes of the National Coal Board, are unproductive, an essential element of increased productivity? If the miners insist that those pits should not be closed, why does the NCB not offer them to the miners as workers' cooperatives at peppercorn rents?

Mr. Walker: There has been no approach on that basis from the NUM or the miners. Any such approach would be carefully considered. In practice, the important thing is that during this period there is major investment in pits that will be economic and successful. That is important for the future of the industry.

Mr. O'Brien: Bearing in mind the Minister's last answer about capital investment in pits, will he at some time give the House an idea of the outlook at pits where there has been capital investment and at those pits that have been starved of capital investment — the uneconomic pits that have been referred to? Does the Minister agree that if there is capital starvation a pit automatically becomes uneconomic?

Mr. Walker: The "Plan for Coal" included plans for investment, and under the Conservative Government the capital investment programmes in that plan have been exceeded, not decreased.

Mr. Michael Morris: Is it not true that over £2 million a day has been spent in capital investment in pits since


1979 and that since that time productivity has increased, except, perhaps, in the remaining 20 pits which are uneconomic? Should the miners not recognise that Selby, Belvoir and the other modern pits offer their youngsters the future opportunities that they seek?

Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir, it is very important for the future of the industry that the least economic pits should be replaced by way of high investment in the pits of the future. That has happened under all Governments, and that is what is happening at present.

Mr. Ashton: If there is too much coal in the country, why do the Government not slash the price of electricity, as any other business man would do if stocks were too high? Would not a massive cut in electricity prices reduce inflation, help industry, create jobs, keep pits open, and help the pensioners? Is that not the answer to the problem, rather than continually increasing the price of electricity?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I believe that the question is about productivity in the coal mining industry.

Mr. Walker: I have read with fascination the columns produced by the hon. Gentleman over the years, but during the period when the Labour Government were in power I did not see any criticism by the hon. Gentleman of the fact that electricity prices were rising every six weeks — rather than every three years as at present.

Mr. Bottomley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a profit improvement of less than 0·5 per cent. per year, such as we have from this major industry, would, if spread across the whole economy, mean that we would have far less money to spend on desirable social objectives?

Mr. Walker: The productivity figures have been disappointing for all sides of the industry, especially in view of the enormous capital investment in it.

Mr. Orme: On productivity, why has the Cortonwood pit in Yorkshire, which has five years' life, been closed with five weeks' notice.

Mr. Walker: The right hon. Gentleman will find, from a statement made in the House and another made by the National Coal Board last week, that the board is willing to discuss the pit with the National Union of Mineworkers but so far the NUM has not taken up that invitation.

UK Continental Shelf

Mr. Douglas: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the current percentage of orders coming to United Kingdom suppliers from investment in the United Kingdom continental shelf.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Figures for the United Kingdom offshore supplies industry's share of the United Kingdom continental shelf market in 1983 will be recorded in my Department's 1984 Brown Book, which will be published as soon as possible after the Easter recess.

Mr. Douglas: Will those figures show clearly the substantial loss to the United Kingdom, through the loss of the Sun Oil contract for the Balmoral field and also, perhaps more pointedly, the loss of the pipe contract, which has now gone to Japan, for Shell's Fulmar field? Are we to take it that the expectations that arose from the cancellation of the gas-gathering scheme and the Government's view that we would get other substantial orders are nothing but a tissue of lies?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I utterly disagree with the hon. Gentleman, who should know that orders that have not yet been placed will not appear in the 1983 figures. I share the anxiety about what has happened with regard to Sun Oil, as I have said clearly in the House. With regard to the pipeline, I hope that British companies will produce at a price and to a specification that oil operators require, because unless we do that, we shall not get the orders.

Energy Conservation

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he is satisfied that existing energy conservation schemes are adequate.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The Government have a comprehensive set of measures to promote the efficient use of energy and the energy efficiency office has considerably extended its activities as part of our energy efficiency campaign.

Mr. Knox: Can my right hon. Friend estimate what potential energy savings there are? Is he satisfied that it will be possible to achieve them through the existing schemes?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: We estimate that in industry and commerce savings of about 20 per cent. can be gained, which is equivalent to £2 billion a year. Therefore, the prize is big. With extra effort being made and the new schemes being introduced, I hope that we shall make progress towards that objective.

Mr. Rowlands: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the home improvement grant scheme is a vital part and parcel of energy conservation in some of our older homes? Is he further aware that all such schemes are now frozen by local authorities at the behest of the Secretary of State for Wales?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Gentleman should be aware that a considerable amount of work is in progress and, as soon as it is completed, the scheme will be reopened and the opportunity will be there. At the same time, all the specific insulation schemes go on, contrary to what the hon. Gentleman is trying to imply.

Coal Stocks

Mr. Nellist: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will estimate the current cost to the National Coal Board of the coal stockpiled at the pithead.

Mr. Giles Shaw: As I told the hon. Member on 21 November 1983, the cost of funding coal stocks at pitheads currently exceeds £100 million per annum in interest charges.

Mr. Nellist: I challenge that figure, because the accountants in the NCB believe it to be double that, at £200 million. Therefore, will the Minister answer this question? Is it not a fact that over the past five years coal stocks have doubled as a political preparation for a miners' strike against redundancy or for pay increases? Would it not be better to use the £200 million spent annually on interest charges on coal stocks, the £1 million spent on the spot market for oil in Amsterdam for extra fuel supplies, and the £1 million spent to pay for the police on the picket lines, on maintaining jobs in the pits and paying the miners a decent wage?

Mr. Shaw: I am grateful for the fact that the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about the costs of interest charges on large stocks of coal. However, if he wants to get the best use out of those coal stocks, I suggest that they could be reduced if uneconomic production were reduced, as a result of which the industry would benefit in both ways.

Mr. Eggar: Was not the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) arguing for more pits to be closed?

Mr. Shaw: That appears to be the drift of his logic.

Oil-fired Power Stations (Conversion)

Mr. Pike: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if, when he next meets the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board, he will discuss the board's future proposals for conversion of the remaining oil-fired power stations to coal.

Mr. Giles Shaw: It is for the CEGB to determine whether, in the light of all relevant factors, it wishes to propose the conversion of all or some of its oil-fired stations, and I should wish to discuss any specific proposals with the chairman of the board.

Mr. Pike: As Britain has large coal reserves, and oil is a diminishing resource, should not the Government be urging the CEGB to use as much coal as possible? Would not the conversion of existing power stations extend the life of some of those stations, such as Padiham in the Burnley constituency, which at present use 50 per cent. coal and 50 per cent. oil, thereby helping to meet a probable shortfall of electricity generation in the early 1990s?

Mr. Shaw: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's interest in maintaining the present flow of coal to power stations. However, he will be the first to accept that the CEGB has already committed a large amount of forward planning to coal burning in power stations. Indeed, it has a four-year commitment to take in the order of 70 million tonnes to fuel the power stations. The hon. Gentleman is right—all the time the CEGB is looking at the most efficient means of extending its use of thermal equipment to coal burning.

Sleipner Field Gas

Mr. Rost: asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to make a statement on the proposed purchase by the British Gas Corporation of Norwegian gas from the Sleipner field.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The British Gas Corporation has informed me about progress with its Sleipner negotiations, but there are still a number of aspects that need to be studied carefully.

Mr. Rost: Before the Government allow British Gas to buy another £20 billion worth of high-cost Norwegian gas, will he satisfy himself that the taxpayer will get a better deal out of that than by encouraging the development of perhaps cheaper gas from our own very adequate offshore continental shelf reserves?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: There are a considerable number of issues to consider. There are the implications in regard to our own production. There is equally the fact

that as the Frigg supplies begin to run down, as we go into the 1990s, there could be a considerable gap in the available supplies. It is a very serious matter. There are many different aspects to be considered and we shall look at them all very carefully before coming to a decision.

Mr. Rowlands: Do not the assessments show that we shall need the gas from Sleipner and as much gas as possible from the British sector of the North sea if we are to meet the growing demand for gas supplies in the latter part of this decade?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: All the best estimates show that there is a gap into the 1990s and the BGC and the Government have the responsibility to make sure that that gap is properly filled. Of course, there are other supplies as well.

Fusion Project (Culham)

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on progress in recent months with respect to the fusion project at Culham.

Mr. Giles Shaw: Encouraging progress continues to be made in the Joint European Torus project and at the UKAEA's laboratory at Culham, which are both parts of the Euratom fusion programme.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Will my hon. Friend try to ensure that the subsequent development work flowing from the project is carried out in Britain, as far as possible, as a contribution towards correcting the imbalance in our contributions to the European Community?

Mr. Shaw: I understand my hon. Friend's point of view. He will be aware that this is a matter for negotiation with our European partners, but he will be glad to know that construction of the device was completed on schedule and very close to budget. He will also be delighted to know that Her Majesty the Queen will formally open the JET at a ceremony on 9 April.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

Ministerial Statements

Mr. Winnick: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will propose a Standing Order regulating the circumstances in which Ministers may make statements in the House.

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): No, Sir. I believe that the present arrangements for Ministers to make statements after questions serve the general convenience of the House.

Mr. Winnick: Will the Leader of the House bear in mind that there is some difficulty in that when there is a wish for a statement to be made, say by the Prime Minister about the Oman affair, it is not possible to get such a statement? Is there not, therefore, a need to change the Standing Order so that when matters of great public interest arise, which undoubtedly the matter to which I referred is, we can get a statement from the Prime Minister?

Mr. Biffen: I see no necessity for changing the Standing Order and think that it would be quite impossible


to provide some procedural definition which required a statement. I believe that present arrangements work tolerably well.

Mr. Beith: Has the Leader of the House noticed that, nowadays, statements by Ministers tend to be followed by even longer statements from the Opposition Front Bench, members of which then complain if anyone from the alliance Benches, who represents a similar number of voters, asks more than a brief question? Is that not a matter that the Procedure Committee could properly look into?

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman is a sensitive soul, but mercifully a very experienced politician; and I do not think that he suffers as much as he protests.

Mr. Marlow: Would it be possible to change the rules on ministerial statements so that it would be possible for the Leader of the Opposition to make a statement about whether he believes it would be right or wrong for there to be a ballot in the coal mines?

Mr. Biffen: It would be impolite and impolitic for me to comment on that question.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Would not such regulation substantially help Parliament to check the Executive? Surely the only way in which we can establish the truth about Oman is to get the Prime Minister at the Dispatch Box to answer Parliament, as she should have done 10 weeks ago.

Mr. Biffen: For the reasons that I have given, I do not believe that what is proposed would be an appropriate way in which to secure greater discipline over the Executive and I do not look to the hon. Gentleman as an authority on truth with regard to Oman.

Mr. Michael Morris: Will my right hon. Friend accept that on a Monday, such as today, when there are three statements, colleagues who do not live as conveniently near to the House as I do, in the midlands, but perhaps come from the north or Scotland, do not know until 12 o'clock that there is to be a statement? Presumably they have to leave home extremely early in the morning. Will he look into that?

Mr. Biffen: I am sure that my hon. Friend appreciates that there are only two statements today, the third item being a private notice question. There are real difficulties associated with trying to put statements into the discipline of a greater time notice than that which we now require, as they often arise from last-minute occurrences.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Leader of the House aware that one of his hon. Friends said that there was not much interest in the Oman affair? Has he noticed that more than 400 Members of Parliament from all parts of the House have signed motions on the matter, which is one of the highest numbers ever recorded, so there must be much interest in the affair? Following what the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), the Chief Whip of the Liberal party, said, does the right hon. Gentleman not find it strange that when there are statements in the House by Ministers, the Liberals and Social Democrats sometimes contradict themselves, which hardly fits into the pattern put forward outside of being one party, because in the House they are two parties?

Mr. Biffen: I did not hear the sedentary remark by an hon. Friend concerning the interest or otherwise in the

Oman affair. If I am to be referred to the Order Paper and the signatories of the motions, I should like to say that I judge that the Ayes have it. I must conclude that there is no one more adept that the hon. Gentleman—may I call him my hon. Friend?—in demonstrating the multi-party facet of the Labour party.

Mr. Foulkes: Is the Leader of the House aware that when parallel statements are made on exactly the same subject relating first to England and Wales and secondly to Scotland, invariably the English and Welsh statement is made orally in the House, where hon. Members can subject the Minister to questioning, but the statement on Scotland is made either as a written answer or by the Secretary of State at a press conference in Edinburgh? Will the Leader of the House arrange parity for Scots Members so that they can put the Secretary of State for Scotland under the same scrutiny as other United Kingdom Ministers?

Mr. Biffen: I was not aware that the situation was precisely as described by the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps he will permit me to hide in a cowardly fashion behind the skirts of the usual channels as a way of resolving the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE

Recruitment Policy

Mr. Chapman: asked the Minister for the Civil Service if he will make a statement on recruitment policy into the Civil Service.

The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Barney Hayhoe): The Government's policy on recruitment to the Civil Service is to ensure, within the requirement of open competition on merit laid down in the Civil Service Order in Council 1982, that those appointed are best suited by aptitude, ability and, where appropriate, experience to undertake the work required of them.

Mr. Chapman: Was recruitment to the industrial and non-industrial Civil Service greatly reduced as a result of the plan to reduce total numbers from 730,000 to 630,000 in the last five years, or was the reduction achieved mainly through natural wastage and voluntary resignations?

Mr. Hayhoe: The reduction in the number of civil servants was mainly achieved by the means described by my hon. Friend, but I should point out that in 1983 the number of civil servants recruited was under half the number recruited in 1978.

Mr. Rowe: At a time when the number of applicants with high qualifications tends to exceed the number of jobs available, is the Minister confident that those who enter the service at lower levels than their qualifications would normally merit can proceed easily to the higher levels if their ability shows that they are capable of doing so?

Mr. Hayhoe: There is certainly the possibility of promotion across the whole of the Civil Service, but I must point out that, as the size of the Civil Service has been reduced, the opportunities for promotion have also been reduced.

Mr. Madden: What preparations is the Civil Service making to record the recruitment of people from the ethnic minorities? Is the Minister satisfied with such recruitment, especially within the DHSS?

Mr. Hayhoe: As the hon. Gentleman is, I hope, aware, the Civil Service has a good record on equal opportunities for both women and members of ethnic minorities. We introduced a small pilot project to look at this question. The results were encouraging, and that has been followed by two major pilot projects, which are continuing.

Mr. Stokes: Does my hon. Friend agree that loyalty should be the first requirement for recruitment into the Civil Service? Is he satisfied that the procedures are such that only those whose loyalty is assured are now recruited?

Mr. Hayhoe: My hon. Friend is right. The loyalty of civil servants is of paramount importance, and the record over many years shows that the loyalty of the vast majority of civil servants is second to none. I think that most of them regret the few occasions on which a few people depart from the very high standards that we expect of our civil servants.

Mr. Allen McKay: What effect does the Minister expect recruitment and wastage policy in the Civil Service to have on the overstretched DHSS staff?

Mr. Hayhoe: I do not think that it will have any effect. The DHSS is working very hard in carrying out central functions, distributing — as the hon. Gentleman will know—many hundreds of millions of pounds of benefit, with very few mistakes. It would be right for hon. Members in all parts of the House to pay tribute to the work of the staff in that Department. But, as in most other areas of the Civil Service, it is right that we should be seeking to reduce numbers by achieving greater efficiency and greater value for the taxpayers' money.

Ministry of Defence (Reorganisation)

Mr. Eggar: asked the Minister for the Civil Service to what extent his Department was involved in the recent review of the management and organisation of the Ministry of Defence.

Mr. Hayhoe: Both central Departments have kept in touch with the development in the Ministry of Defence of the MINIS system, on which the review was based. But the review itself was carried out by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

Mr. Eggar: Has my hon. Friend noted that a key part of the Secretary of State's proposals relates to the introduction of responsibility budgets? What plans has my hon. Friend to ensure that his Department urges other Departments in Whitehall to introduce similar systems?

Mr. Hayhoe: The central Departments have, of course, been urging all the Departments in Whitehall to carry through the measures that were outlined in the White Paper concerned with the financial management initiative, and the point raised by my hon. Friend is part of that.

Mr. Pavitt: Is the Minister responsible for the staff of the Ministry of Defence engaged in armament sales, who have lost a few million pounds by first moving into and then moving out of 35 Great Smith street? If the Minister is responsible, will he now discuss that reorganisation and find out whether it is costing us money or saving it?

Mr. Hayhoe: It is not my responsibility; it is a matter for the Secretary of State. If the facts given by the hon. Member are correct, my right hon. Friend will wish to look at the matter.

Mr. Soames: Does my hon. Friend agree that the review undertaken by the Secretary of State for Defence was a remarkable achievement? Will my hon. Friend press him further to ensure that such reviews, where possible, are carried out in all other Government Departments?

Mr. Hayhoe: All Secretaries of State are responsible for the work of their own Departments, and it certainly is not for me to instruct Secretaries of State how to go about their business. But I am sure that they will have taken note of the sage advice of my hon. Friend.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Has not organisation at GCHQ been grossly undermined in the last few days with the introduction today of the polygraph? Why does not the hon. Gentleman withdraw that evil device and restore the rights of people at GCHQ to live by the loyalty that they have traditionally shown to the nation?

Mr. Hayhoe: The hon. Gentleman's question about GCHQ has absolutely nothing to do with the question before the House concerning the Ministry of Defence. The hon. Gentleman's question is not only irrelevant; it is wholly inaccurate, in that he is basing it on press reports that are untrue.

Energy Supplies

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) to ask his private notice question, I remind the House of two things. First, this is an extension of Question Time and, secondly, when the right hon. Gentleman has read out his question, the House will understand that it relates to a single matter which was not covered in energy questions today. That is why I granted the PNQ.

Mr. Tony Benn (Chesterfield) (by private notice): asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether, in the light of the decision of the transport unions to support the National Union of Mineworkers, he will make a statement on energy supplies.

The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Peter Walker): I gather that last week there was a meeting of the national officers of six unions who stated that they would recommend to their members action which they described as being in support of the National Union of Mineworkers. I gather that those actions will be discussed in some unions by their executives and in others at branch level. Naturally, I hope that in considering those recommendations trade unionists will take into consideration the fact that, as I understand it, 14 of the 24 members of the National Union of Mineworkers' executive are mandated to support a national ballot, that almost all those in the areas of the National Union of Mineworkers that have been able to express their view in a ballot have demonstrated conclusively that they want to go to work and that today 56 pits, compared with 46 pits last Friday, are either working normally or——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to stop the Secretary of State, but I said at the beginning that the question relates only to the transport unions' support of the National Union of Mineworkers and has nothing to do with the closure of pits.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will take the point of order afterwards.

Mr. Walker: The question asked me about the action of some union leaders last week. I am commenting that those unions are in a state of discussion as to what they will do. I am expressing the hope that they will carefully consider the position of a majority of the members of the NUM executive and the majority of those who have voted so far.
As for the question of supplies, there are no specific actions following those decisions on which I am in a position to comment. I can only say that this is an industry for which the Government have authorised £2 million of capital investment per day. I hope, therefore, that it will not be an industry——

Mr. Alexander Eadie: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will take the point of order afterwards. However, I ask the Secretary of State to be good enough to deal with the question that was actually asked.

Mr. Eadie: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I told the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) that I would take the point of order afterwards.

Mr. Walker: I can only express the hope that there will be no damage to supplies which will jeopardize——

Mr. Eadie: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not taking points of order now.

Mr. Stanley Orme: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Now that the Secretary of State has put the matter——

Mr. Michael Morris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Orme: I am speaking to a point of order. Now that the Secretary of State has widened the question, it should be permissible for the House to raise those matters.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I specifically said at the start of this private notice question that it was on a narrow point. I drew that to the attention of the House and pointed out that, while we had had a long run of energy questions today on the mining dispute, this question referred specifically to a new element which had arisen before 12 o'clock today, namely, the decision of the transport unions to support the NUM. That is what this question is about.

Mr. Eadie: Further to the point of order raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme), may I ask if you are aware, Mr. Speaker, that you are making precisely the point that I wanted to make? I regretted having to raise this point in the middle of the Secretary of State's statement. The right hon. Gentleman, deliberately to some extent, went wider than you asked when you called the private notice question to be answered. That is why I am raising this point of order. I submit that the Secretary of State has no more rights than any Back Bencher in this House when it comes to obeying the Chair. I must put it to you, Mr. Speaker—I do so with regret — that the right hon. Gentleman is not carrying out the wishes of the Chair. That being so, it must mean that the whole issue has now been broadened. If he makes that type of statement, the whole issue must be broadened.

Mr. Peter Hordern: rose——

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I say again to the House that I granted this private notice question on a single issue, and we cannot broaden it. That is exactly why I made my statement and why I granted the private notice question. I might well have had to take other matters into consideration if I had granted a different type of private notice question.

Mr. Michael Morris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you please to protect the rights of my right hon. Friend, who is answering this private notice question to the best of his ability?

Several hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State is in exactly the same position, as the hon. Member for


Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) pointed out, as every other Member of the House. The same rules apply to the Front Benches as to the Back Benches.

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie), may I ask you to give an assurance that now that the matter has been widened by the Secretary of State, by bringing in other matters, Back Benchers will be able to come into the discussion on the same lines on to which the right hon. Gentleman ventured? Will you also take into account the fact that we expect the Secretary of State to move in such diverse ways? The right hon. Gentleman must think that he is operating another Slater Walker trust that travels all over the world.

Mr. Speaker: I shall not allow the question to go wider, whatever the Secretary of State said — [Interruption.]—which he should not have said—[HON. MEMBERS:"Oh!"] — and the House will know that I asked him twice not to do so. I shall allow questions strictly in relation to the matter on which I granted the private notice question.

Several hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. If any right hon. or hon. Member wishes to proceed on that basis I shall be willing to call him, within the parameters of the time available. I must warn the House that we have two statements to follow and an important Bill to debate.

Mr. Walker: Further to those points of order, Mr. Speaker. I must point out to the House that I was asked a question about the decision of certain trade unions. There has been no decision of certain trade unions; there has been a pronouncement of certain trade union leaders. I submit, therefore, with respect, Mr. Speaker, that it is perfectly in order in reply to this question—[Interruption.]—for me to suggest what those trade unions might take into consideration in coming to their conclusions.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House to calm down about this. I hope very much that the Secretary of State's office received a copy of the private notice question. If it had, he would then have seen that it concerned the decision by the transport unions and not a wide range of other unions. I shall now take questions, for not more than five minutes, specifically on the question that was asked. I repeat it for the benefit of the House. The Secretary of State was asked
whether, in the light of the decision of the transport unions to support the National Union of Mineworkers, he will make a statement on energy supplies.

Mr. Benn: Everyone understands the Secretary of State's difficulty. He ran the three-day week 10 years ago as Secretary of State for Industry——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The same rules apply.

Mr. Benn: —and was rejected after a ballot of the nation.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot allow the right hon. Gentleman to persist in that line.

Mr. Benn: I was drawing attention to the reason why the Secretary of State would not answer the question.
What I want to know is what the Secretary of State is obliged by the Act to tell the House — how long the present stocks of coal and coke will last at current rates of

production, distribution and consumption. Has the Ministry of Defence been consulted, and is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the escalation of the dispute which gave rise to my question is due to the policy of the National Coal Board in setting aside all consultation procedures and the action of the police in making peaceful picketing impossible?
Will the Secretary of State now please answer the question?

Mr. Walker: If we are commenting on histories at the Department of Energy, I must tell the House that few people have a worse record than the right hon. Gentleman for lower investment, worse pay and much less generous redundancy payments in the coal industry.
I am pleased to say that the power stations have very considerable coal stocks.

Mr. Benn: How much?

Mr. Walker: They are certainly likely to last about six months. In other industries stocks vary according to the industry concerned. In the interests of the coal industry, however, I hope that supplies of coal will not stop, thus preventing firms from converting to coal.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will my right hon. Friend accept that members of the Transport and General Workers Union such as I have no more been consulted on our leaders' decision in relation to the coal dispute than have members of the National Union of Mineworkers nationally? Will he encourage Opposition Front Bench spokesmen to state their view on a national ballot of those directly involved?

Mr. Walker: I agree with my hon. Friend that at a time when the coal industry is enjoying such high investment and such good prospects for the future it is a great pity that, seemingly against the wishes of the majority of the national executive and the majority of those who voted, no ballot has been allowed.

Mr. Eadie: The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that the Transport and General Workers Union is part of the triple alliance. What was the advice given to him as Secretary of State for Energy as to the part that would be played by the triple alliance in the event of an industrial dispute in the mining industry?

Mr. Walker: That is an interesting point, especially in relation to what the triple alliance should do in Nottinghamshire, for example, where the majority of the miners' part of the triple alliance are at work and want to work. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the other parts of the triple alliance should take industrial action against them?

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: Will my hon. Friend advise those enterprises whose business and job prospects are being damaged by lack of fuel that they have legal rights against secondary picketing?

Mr. Walker: I think that people are aware of their rights. In the interests of the coal industry, however, I should point out that the prospects for increased coal consumption in the future — in December, 78 firms applied for grants for conversion to coal, but in March the figure was down to two — are being considerably damaged by the present action.

Mr. James Wallace: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that there is considerable


concern in Scotland today over newspaper reports on the effect that any threat to supplies might have on the future viability of the Ravescraig steel plant? What steps will the Government take to ensure the continued viability of that plant in any crisis?

Mr. Walker: I hope that coal and coke supplies will continue flowing into our major steel plants. I know of the considerable disquiet expressed about any danger to jobs, including the disquiet of a leading trade unionist whose union is part of the triple alliance.

Mr. Tony Marlow: Will my right hon. Friend suggest that while the transport workers are making their decisions they should take into account that Arthur Scargill, the Galtieri of the coalfields, has no interest whatever in the future of the coal mining industry but is using the NUM — or abusing it — for purely political purposes to confront the Government?

Mr. Walker: I can only express the hope that all of the important questions at stake on pay, the likelihood of closures, the massive investment in the coal industry, and the generosity of redundancy payments for those who wish to volunteer for redundancy will be carefully considered by the miners and that they will be allowed to express their views.

Mr. Orme: In view of the serious effect of this escalating dispute upon employment and industry, which makes it a national issue, what action will the Secretary of State and the Government take to bring both sides together? The right hon. Gentleman cannot stand idly by any longer. He has a responsibility to intervene to bring both sides together.

Mr. Walker: I find it astounding that if the right hon. Gentleman is deeply concerned about the nature of this industrial dispute—I am sure he is—he does not urge that the members of the NUM should be given an early opportunity to say how they wish the matter to be handled.

Social Security System (Reviews)

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Norman Fowler): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement on my plans for taking forward a series of reviews on the social security system.
As the House will know, I have already set in hand a thorough review of the largest single element of social security provision through the inquiry which I am chairing into provision for retirement. We have made good progress on that inquiry. I have now received no fewer than 1,700 submissions from interested organisations and members of the public on the subject of portable pensions alone. We have now completed our public sessions on that subject, but I intend to hold further public sessions on the wider issues of pensions policy in the coming months.
I also announced in February that I intended to establish a review of the housing benefit scheme. That scheme, which now accounts for some £4 billion of expenditure a year and is paid to one household in three throughout the country, has increased rapidly in scale. The announcement of a review was widely welcomed and I am glad to be able to report that the review will be chaired by Mr. Jeremy Rowe, chairman of the Peterborough Development Corporation, deputy chairman of Abbey National Building Society and chairman of London Brick Company. His experience makes him well suited to this important task and I am grateful to him for agreeing to take it on. He will be commencing the review when his involvement with London Brick Company ends later this month and I expect then to announce the two other independent members of his review team.
Although these reviews represent a substantial undertaking, I believe that the time is right to look at the other major parts of the social security system as well. Spending on the social security budget now totals more than £35 billion and accounts for almost 30 per cent. of all public expenditure. Payments — including national insurance pensions — go to well over 20 million beneficiaries; and the whole system requires the employment of almost 80,000 staff in my Department to administer the various schemes. Given the importance of social security, no responsible Government can avoid the duty to look carefully at the way the system works. I am therefore establishing two further reviews. The first will be concerned with the supplementary benefit scheme. The scheme now deals with well over 4 million claimants, of whom 1½ million are pensioners. Over 7 million people live in households in receipt of supplementary benefit and total expenditure on the benefits is more than £5½ billion. Following the review undertaken by the last Government, a number of major changes in the scheme were introduced in 1980 to make the scheme subject to a much greater extent to specific parliamentary regulations. The aim was to consolidate legal entitlement to benefit and to reduce the dependence of the system on the discretion of staff.
The changes, however, have not resolved some central problems. In particular, the system is complex to administer and difficult to understand. The result is that it is still necessary for some 35,000 staff in my Department to be employed wholly on the administration of supplementary benefit; and the procedures and rules under which the scheme is administered remain extremely complicated both for staff and for claimants. I believe it


is essential that we should look again at supplementary benefit, and I have asked my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security to lead a small team which will review the structure of the scheme and consider the scope for easing its administration.
The second major area in which we have decided that a review is required is that of benefits for children and young people. At present, we pay out very large sums of money through a particularly complex pattern of social security benefits. For instance, a working family may get help for children through child benefit alone, or with housing benefit, family income supplement, or one-parent benefit, or a combination of them. As for young people generally, the amount of social security support depends not just on personal or family circumstances, but on whether they are in employment, education or training. All these benefits have a sensible purpose, but we need to be sure that this is the best way of providing support. I have therefore asked my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security to lead a team in reviewing the present social security arrangements for giving financial help to families with children and to young people above school leaving age.
The largest remaining area within the social security programme is that of providing disablement benefits. Here I propose a somewhat different approach. With the ending of the invalidity trap, the introduction of war pensioners' mobility supplement and our proposals for a severe disablement allowance, we are making useful progress towards our declared objective of a more coherent system. We shall continue to look for further practical steps in this direction.
But it is clear that in the longer term the development of our policy would be helped by more reliable information about the numbers of disabled people, their circumstances and their needs. There has been no comprehensive study of the extent of disablement in the population for 15 years, and even that excluded some important groups. I therefore intend to take steps to fill this gap in our knowledge by undertaking a full-scale survey. A feasibility study on this is already under way.
As to the arrangements for each review, they will all involve independent figures from outside the Government. The reviews will also follow the lead of the inquiry into provision for retirement by seeking public evidence. Each of the reviews will aim to identify the needs which should be provided for and consider how, within the resource constraints we face, those needs can most sensibly be met. I have asked the leaders of each of the reviews to report their conclusions to me later this year.
Taken together, the various reviews and studies I have set in hand constitute the most substantial examination of the social security system since the Beveridge report 40 years ago.

Mr. Michael Meacher: Is the Secretary of State aware that we suspect that his statement has a good deal less to do with the welfare of pensioners, tenants and all the poor than with the planning of yet further public expenditure cuts, and this proposal of his has the fingerprints of the Treasury all over it? Does it not expose the nature of the Government's reviews when the Treasury's own budget reports now show the cumulative value of tax cuts to the rich since 1979 at £13,000 million, while the cumulative value of cutbacks in benefit to the

poor since 1979, by lowering the pension uprating criterion, by abolishing the earnings-related supplement and by other means, now exceeds £5,000 million?
Will the right hon. Gentleman now give an assurance, which he has refused to do before, that, whatever else the pensions inquiry does, it will not erode the state earnings-related pension scheme, which the Labour Government introduced in 1975, and which offers pensioners the best deal that they have ever had?
Will the terms of reference of the review team on housing benefit include a no extra cost constraint? If so, how does the right hon. Gentleman justify forcing through a £190 million cut in benefit for the poor, when only three weeks ago the Chancellor gave a £520 million tax handout to the rich by abolishing the unearned income surcharge, and halving stamp duty on share transactions?
On supplementary benefit, while we recognise that legalisation of the system has not generally operated in favour of claimants and has led to a proliferation of secret documents, will the Secretary of State give a categorical assurance that reviewing the structure of the scheme will not involve any cut in the level or the coverage of the supplementary benefit in what is, even under this Government, the safety net for the poorest claimants?
On benefits for children and young people, while we believe that child benefit needs to be enhanced, is the Secretary of State aware that his previous reviews on this issue have always involved cuts in benefit such as scrapping the short-term child dependency additions and reducing the non-dependent allowance in housing? Therefore, will he give us an unequivocal pledge that this time it will not be the same again?
On disablement benefits, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, while we support the principle of a comprehensive and coherent scheme, what is missing is not further information about the disabled but a readiness to give financial priority to them? Is he prepared to do that?
Will all these reviews he published in full when completed? Is the Secretary of State aware that we would have a great deal more confidence in these reviews if he had not in the past so often proved to be acting as an agent for the Treasury?

Mr. Fowler: That is a typically foolish response from the hon. Gentleman.
The last time the hon. Gentleman spoke from the Dispatch Box he complained about the piecemeal way in which social security provision was approached. We have now announced a series of reviews that adds up to the most comprehensive review of the social security system for 40 years. It is in everyone's interest to see whether the schemes about which we are talking are working as effectively as possible. An open review must mean open discussion, and the hon. Gentleman is foolish to fear that open discussion.
On finances, the aim is to make the best use of the available resources and to channel them to where they are most needed. The premise of working within overall budgets remains, and we must recognise that there are resource restraints.
As the hon. Gentleman will perhaps acknowledge, supplementary benefit is complex. The two manuals of guidance contain 16,000 paragraphs of instructions for the DHSS staff who administer the scheme. It is administered by 35,000 staff, and I should have thought that it was in


the interests of everyone, including claimants, to ensure that the schemes and the system were as simple as possible.
We are already making progress towards a more coherent system for the disabled, but the development of that policy requires reliable information about the numbers of the disabled and their needs. The hon. Gentleman appears to be disagreeing, but that is the case.

Mr. Meacher: There has been a comprehensive review.

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. There has been no comprehensive survey for 15 years, since the Amelia Hams report. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to make an issue of that, he will not take many people with him.
The Government will announce their proposals for support, and it will be at that stage that we shall publish the separate results of the inquiries. Clearly, the need is to bring together the separate work of the reviews. This is the most comprehensive inquiry for 40 years.

Mr. Robert McCrindle: I warmly welcome what is clearly a most radical review of the social security system and one that arguably should have been undertaken by Governments of both political complexions in the past. Will my right hon. Friend take on board the fact that the system has become so difficult to operate and so complex to understand that if there were widespread recognition of the need for changes across the board we should be looking almost to starting from scratch, with a clean sheet? Will he take into account that that might be the best way, rather than to go on doing a little here and a little there, and thereby building up to the manuals of instruction which few people, including his civil servants, understand?

Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend has made a fair point. One of the fundamental aims of these reviews is to ascertain whether we can simplify the system. I believe that the system's complexity is recognised by the public. That aspect affects staff in offices and, above all, the public. I believe that the public wish the Government to make some attempt to reduce that complexity and simplify the system.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: I point out to the right hon. Gentleman, who now seems to be worried about how to work out the number of disabled people, that I am in a position to help him. Tomorrow afternoon the other place will debate the Third reading of a Bill which bears a great similarity to the Bill that I introduced on 18 November 1983. Part II will allow the Secretary of State to conduct a thorough survey of the number of disabled people in the United Kingdom.
What are the right hon. Gentleman's intentions about that Bill now that he admits that legislation is needed? In view of the tremendous reform which the right hon. Gentleman tells us he has introduced, how much better off will the young man or young woman who wishes to take a course in a college of further education and to do home work at the same time be? Can such people now receive supplementary benefit, which was denied them in the past?

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman is wrong if he thinks that legislation is required to conduct a survey of disabled people. I welcome the fact that, unlike the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), the hon. Gentleman believes that such a survey is necessary. We agree on the necessity of the survey. The last survey was conducted 15 years ago. We intend the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys to carry out a survey, because we have been getting our forecasts wrong. Attendance allowance is one aspect for consideration. I hope that, whatever other differences we may have, the hon. Gentleman will support the idea of this survey going forward.

Mr. Ralph Howell: I welcome my right hon. Friend's intention to conduct these reviews into social security. Bearing in my the interaction of taxation and welfare benefits, I urge my right hon. Friend to refrain from conducting those reviews in isolation. He should conduct a comprehensive review into the whole area of taxation and welfare.

Mr. Fowler: I have heard what my hon. Friend says about that matter. He has made substantial points. Clearly, my right hon. Friends in the Government will want to take them into account.

Mr. Archie Kirkwood: The alliance gives these proposals a guarded welcome and looks forward to playing a positive and constructive role during the inquiries. I have three short questions. First — this point has just been made to the right hon. Gentleman — is it possible to extend the terms of reference of the supplementary benefit inquiry to consider the interface between taxation and the social security system with a tax credit scheme? Secondly, will he extend the terms of reference of the children's inquiry to consider parental careers in the first years after childbirth and schemes prevalent in other European countries? Thirdly, in the survey of the disabled, will the right hon. Gentleman take account of the needs of those who look after the elderly and disabled people?
We note that the reports are due this year, and we hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not hide behind them. We hope that he will say what will happen in the next 10 years rather than hide in the same way as he has been doing about a decision on the death grant. Can we expect firm proposals after those inquiries have been carried out, and for leadership to be shown?

Mr. Fowler: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall go as far as he wishes with the children's inquiry. Clearly, we wish to conduct the inquiries as speedily as possible. I hope that they will all be completed this year. I believe that, if the hon. Gentleman reflects, he will realise that that means imposing a very short timetable. Some people will argue that simplification can be secured only by tax credit, and Ministers will consider that argument. We shall consider also the unresolved problems of tax credit, for example, for married women.

Mr. Peter Hordern: My right hon. Friend mentioned the Beveridge report. Will he include in his review the payments and benefits paid by Departments other than the Department of Health and Social Security, as was suggested by Beveridge? Beveridge suggested that unemployment benefit should be paid by the same Department that paid supplementary benefit.

Mr. Fowler: We shall look at the interface between the different Departments. My colleagues and officials in other Departments will be kept closely informed about the progress of the inquiries.

Mr. Brynmor John: Does the Secretary of State recognise that there will be a weakness in having four inquiries simultaneously into a matter that deserves a comprehensive remedy? Will he ensure that before the proposals are brought before the House there is a public debate, as occurred on the Beveridge report? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that one of the shortcomings of his proposals is that he has concentrated on the inequities of the scheme, as he sees them, and has made no proposal to inquire into the weaknesses of the scheme? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, for example, the criteria on attendance and mobility allowances are becoming more complicated in view of recent legal decisions? It is high time that further definitions were made of what entitles people to those benefits, so that they can secure justice.

Mr. Fowler: The fact that we have set up the inquiries does not mean that we do not intend to make progress in areas such as those the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. That would be absurd. The hon. Gentleman, on reflection, might feel that the only way that we shall speedily complete the work schedule that I have set out is by organising it in the way that we have done. The holding of a debate is not a decision for me, but clearly the House will wish to debate these matters at some stage.

Mr. Roy Galley: I welcome this important statement, but I should like to press my right hon. Friend on some aspects of the terms of reference. Will they include an examination of the fact that some benefits appear to go to those who are not in most need. For example. an increasing number of single payments are being made under supplementary benefit rules. Other people in specific groups appear to need those benefits more than some people who are presently receiving them. Is my right hon. Friend prepared to take tough decisions which mean that some may lose and some may gain? I press my right hon. Friend further about negative income tax or tax credit. I believe that all Conservative Members accept that such a scheme would not be cost-effective for some time.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Another statement and more business are to follow this debate. Hon. Members should ask only one question at a time. I am sure that the House will return to this subject on another occasion.

Mr. Fowler: The aim of the inquiry is to make the best use of the available resources and to channel them to those most in need. I believe that that is the point made by my hon. Friend. We want to examine especially single payments to claimants, because almost 2 million single payments are made a year by local offices, totalling £140 million. That is a vast administrative effort, involving a comparatively small part of the total social security budget.

Mr. George Foulkes: Is the Secretary of State aware that the House, in testing his sincerity on these five reviews, will bear in mind that it is now the second anniversary of the completion of the review on the death grant? Will the right hon. Gentleman show his sincerity by saying when he

intends to make an announcement about an increase in the death grant, for which the vast majority of the people who contributed to his review asked?

Mr. Fowler: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, we have published proposals on the death grant. We issued a consultation paper. The only sensible thing that I can say is that we shall want to consider the death grant together with the whole of social security over the coming years.

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): Will my right hon. Friend assure us that, while constructing the terms of reference of these inquiries, he will pay particular attention to the difficult subject of people's savings? It always seems to me to be entirely opposed to the Conservative philosophy that those people who manage to save a little day by day are worse off when it comes to claiming a whole range of benefits than those who have been unable to do so or have not cared to do so.

Mr. Fowler: That was one of the original points that was put in the Beveridge report. Many of the principles remain applicable today—the co-operation between the state and the individual, and the encouragement of voluntary action. These are principles which have lasted and which we shall want to strengthen.

Mr. Kevin Barron: Why does the Secretary of State believe that one in three households receives housing benefit and that the figure is rapidly rising?

Mr. Fowler: The reason for that is that we have extended housing benefit. At the moment about one in three households — over 6 million households — are taking housing benefit. Most people would favour and support the idea that there should be an inquiry into the structure and administration of housing benefit. That is what we propose this afternoon. We have had many debates on housing benefit, but I would ask the hon. Gentleman to look forward rather than forever backwards.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have to protect the subsequent business of the House. I shall allow questions on this matter to continue for a further five minutes, and then I shall call the Front Bench speakers.

Mr. Timothy Yeo: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement will be welcomed by everyone who is interested in simplifying the social security system and particularly those interested in disability? Is he further aware that there can be no progress towards a comprehensive disability income scheme without the type of information that will be gathered under this survey? I ask for an assurance that the voluntary organisations will be fully consulted in the framing of the survey. Will he also consider seeking information about the causes of disability, which can be so valuable and lead to long-term preventive measures?

Mr. Fowler: Yes, Sir. I shall immediately consider the point that my hon. Friend makes about voluntary organisations and the input that they can make to the survey. Clearly, we want to take voluntary organisations with us on this survey, and I shall give urgent consideration to the point.

Mr. Max Madden: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that the record number of


people living in poverty will not be helped by official reviews but that they need more money now? Does he accept that the only way to tackle poverty in old age is by way of a big increase in pensions now; that the only way to tackle family poverty is by way of a big increase in child benefit now, and that the only way to help the unemployed is to provide more jobs now?

Mr. Fowler: If the hon. Gentleman studies the Government's record, he will find that we are not only spending £35 billion a year on social security, which by any standards is a formidable amount of public spending, but that there have also been real increases in the value of pensions, supplementary benefit, mobility allowances and other benefits. I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider whether he believes it sensible that we should also examine the structure and administration of social security, because that is also in claimants' interests.

Mrs. Edwina Currie: If I am only allowed one question, Mr. Speaker, may I ask it about the housing benefit review? While welcoming the appointment of Mr. Jeremy Rowe as chairman, because he knows a great deal about housing, could we also have on the review someone who knows a great deal about the administration of housing benefit, particularly from the local authorities?

Mr. Fowler: I hope that within the next few days I will be able to announce someone who comes up to my hon. Friend's specifications.

Mr. Gavin Strang: Instead of tinkering with the social security system, when will the Government address themselves to the policies that have forced so many people to claim social security? Surely the best way to reduce the number of pensioners claiming social security is to increase the pension, and, for non-pensioners, to reverse the policy of destroying millions of jobs, including those in productive industries such as mining.

Mr. Fowler: I have just answered that question. If the hon. Gentleman looks back, he will see that in 1978—in the period of the previous Labour Government—there were 3 million claimants on supplementary benefit, affecting 5 million people. It is foolish of him to look back and believe that there was some golden age when supplementary benefit was not given. It would seem

sensible to study supplementary benefit to see whether it is being given in the right way and whether it is comprehensible to the people receiving it.

Mr. James Couchman: I welcome this report. Will my right hon. Friend undertake to ensure that any decisions that follow the surveys will be coherent and cohesive so that we do not get a number of conflicting decisions afterwards?

Mr. Fowler: The whole purpose of what we are doing is to bring the subjects together and not to deal with them piecemeal. As my hon. Friend says, we want to deal with them much more comprehensively than they have been dealt with hitherto.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: While I welcome any review that could lead to a reduction in complexity in the present system, particularly if it leads to more take-up by claimants, does the Secretary of State agree that the die has already been cast on this review by the 'Treasury Green Paper published at the time of the Budget? Is it not clear that public expenditure will not rise in real terms between now and 1986–87 and, therefore, the greater demand that is being placed on the social security network will create greater tensions, which no review will meet under present Treasury guidelines?

Mr. Fowler: We must clearly recognise the financial constraints that there are and always will be on any social security system. That does not invalidate the case for studying the structure and administration of the social security system.

Mr. Meacher: Will the Secretary of State confirm that in his answer to me he said that these reviews would be working within their existing budgets? Does that mean that they will all be at no extra cost? The Secretary of State seems to be nodding. If that is so, is it not clear—judging by his record—that this will not be the most radical examination of social security since Beveridge, but the most radical dismantling of the welfare state since the war?

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman must have had that point left over from the last election campaign. It has about as much impact as it did during the last election campaign. We are working on the premise of operating within the existing overall budget. We must recognise that there are resource constraints, but if there are any savings in a particular area, the Government clearly have the choice of seeing whether there are other areas within social security to which that money should be diverted.

Agriculture Council

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Michael Jopling): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the meeting of the Council of Agriculture Ministers in Brussels on 30 and 31 March. My hon. Friend the Minister of State and I represented the United Kingdom.
The Council was able to agree on all outstanding issues on prices and other aspects of the common agricultural policy, including the provisional agreements reached at earlier meetings on milk, on monetary compensatory amounts and on other products, details of which I have previously given to the House.
This settlement represents, for the first time, a positive step in controlling the growth of unwanted food surpluses and the consequent huge increases in the cost of the CAP. We can, for instance, expect milk production, which is the greatest problem area, to drop in the current year by about 6 million tonnes below what would otherwise have been the case. The Commission estimates that this alone will save the Community over £1,000 million in a full year. Even so the House must understand that even at the revised level of production, about 10 million tonnes of milk will be produced over and above what the Community itself consumes.
Moreover, the trend makes it doubtful whether, in 1984 at any rate, agricultural expenditure can be easily met within the budgetary provisions. Of course, it is still early in the year and the situation could yet change, but I made it clear to the Council that, in the United Kingdom's view, the Community will need to take the necessary steps to limit expenditure if budgetary problems arise.
Of course, the settlement will cause problems to farmers throughout the Community, but since last July, when the post-Stuttgart proposals were first published, farmers have urged that the uncertainty thereby created be ended as soon as possible. That has now been done.
The supplementary levy for milk, which has been widely discussed since last July, will take effect immediately. The agreement provides for this to continue for five years with a review at the end of the third year. I told the House on 22 March that I was determined to ensure that Ireland was brought within the supplementary levy system and that appropriate arrangements were made for Northern Ireland. I have achieved both of those objectives. Ireland has no guarantee of future expansion beyond this year and I have obtained for Northern Ireland an additional quota of 65,000 tonnes.
On the detailed arrangements for implementing the supplementary levy, I secured important changes which will enable redistribution of quotas to take place without restrictions relating to size of herd.
We are discussing the details with the farmers' unions and the milk marketing boards and information on the supplementary levy will be given to individual farmers as soon as possible. Meanwhile, I urge producers to consider carefully, and to take advice from local advisory officers, before deciding how to adapt their milk enterprises to take account of the impact of the supplementary levy system.
The House will remember that the Commission's original proposal implied a revaluation of the green pound, which was estimated to reduce farm incomes in the United Kingdom by 10 per cent. The NFUs put the deletion of this

proposal as their prime negotiating objective. I am glad to confirm that I have not accepted this proposal, nor, unlike Germany, are we committed to any future revaluation. That adds up to a complete success in this sector.
Another outstanding issue for us was the beef variable premium scheme. Despite very strong opposition from the Commission and all other member states, I insisted on retaining this scheme for the United Kingdom. There is a small reduction in the maximum rate from 10·7p per kg liveweight to about 8·7p, which is higher than it was up until 1982. In order to remove possible distortion of competition in export markets, arrangements will be introduced to claw back the premium on exports which have benefited from it. This outcome means that consumers and producers will continue to benefit from the variable premium scheme. We shall, of course, ensure that the back-up support available through intervention to beef producers in Great Britain and Northern Ireland is maintained.
The specialist beef sector has faced particular difficulties for a number of years, and this has had a damaging effect on the balance between beef and sheep in some areas of the country. I am, therefore, delighted to inform the House that I have decided to double the suckler cow subsidy from £12·37 to the maximum permitted level of £24·74. I know that this will be very welcome indeed to the farming industry.
With regard to the sheep sector, I resisted pressure to defer the final transitional step, which is worth 3·9 per cent. on the support level. This will broadly compensate for the effect of changes in the calculation of the ewe premium. Sheep has been a relatively profitable sector for the past few years, but I recognise that the hill producers have particular difficulties. I have concluded that it is time, after four years with no increase, to raise the guaranteed price of wool by 5p per kilo.
There were a number of other detailed changes to what is a very complicated compromise package. I shall in the normal way arrange for full details to be put in the Library of the House. Overall, the common support prices have been reduced by about 1·5 per cent.; this means, taking into account green rate changes, a reduction in real terms over the Community as a whole of between 2 and 3 per cent.
The settlement is a favourable one for United Kingdom consumers. The price cuts agreed, together with recently introduced economy measures, could well for the first time have a small reducing effect on retail food prices on average.
At the end of the meeting the Council considered again the proposal for New Zealand butter. Despite strong pressure from the Presidency and all other member states, Ireland alone refused to accept the Commission's proposal for a five-year deal. Since unanimous agreement was needed, the Council concluded that there should be a further two-month roll-over. This matter will, therefore, require further discussion at a forthcoming Council.
In conclusion, the House will realise that this has been a very difficult price fixing, against the background of the growing budgetary crisis facing the Community. Inevitably, it creates difficulties for farmers throughout the Community, but I believe that the House will regard the outcome as a fair and realistic one.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Apart from the Minister's most sycophantic Back Benchers, there will


be few who will agree with his conclusions that the settlement is just and fair. Contrary to his statement, there has been no fundamental reform.
Is it not true that, far from there being a fundamental reform, there has been nothing more than an exercise in book-keeping, and not a very successful one at that, because it institutionalises the dairy surpluses? Is it not the case that the problem with the CAP is that it has always sought to deal with the differences between poorer and richer farmers by making more money available? Will not the changes that the Minister has made fall more heavily on the smaller than the larger farmers and so cause great difficulties? Is it not true that the issue is not about whether we reduce surpluses, but about the method by which we do so, and that to reduce them by budgetary means simply perpetuates a fundamentally inequitable system? It is not surprising that we have heard such an outcry from farmers over the weekend.
Is it not the case that nothing in the agreement does anything to square the imbalance between cereals and livestock? The so-called horn and corn balance has in no way been changed. The Minister still has a lot more explaining to do. He says that the expenditure trend makes it doubtful whether, in 1984, agricultural expenditure can be met within the budgetary provisions. There are many different estimates of what the package will cost, varying from £500 million to £1,000 million. Who is going to pay that money?
Will the Minister give an undertaking that nothing will be done that means that either the social or regional fund has to be robbed to pay for the agriculture increases? How can the cost be limited at a future date if budgetary problems arise? Exactly what does the Minister mean by detailed arrangements being arrived at to secure changes in the redistribution of the quota
without restrictions relating to size of herd"?
That seems remarkably obscure.
When will advice be available from the agricultural advisers, and what advice will be given as regards how to adapt the milk enterprises? Given the substantial changes given away on the variable beef premium, what did the right hon. Gentleman mean last Thursday when he said that he did not want to reveal his negotiating hand? Did he not simply mean that he had agreed to give way? Why did he not use his veto? It is clear that the reductions are substantial and there is no doubt in my mind that they are the thin end of the wedge, and that next year there will be even further reductions until the whole thing is eliminated.
Only one part of the statement is somewhat welcome. On Thursday my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mr. Hughes) pressed strongly for an increase in the suckler cow subsidy. Although the Minister poured cold water on that idea, we at least have some cause to welcome the statement.
Perhaps the Minister will clarify the part of his statement that refers to the common support prices. I think that I heard him say that the common support prices had been reduced by about 1·5 per cent. In the very helpful note given to me before the statement was made, there is a reference to 0·5 per cent. Will the right hon. Gentleman let me know whether it is 1·5 per cent. or 0·5 per cent.?
The Minister says that the settlement was favourable to United Kingdom consumers. How can that be the case when the estimates for the reduction in the beef premium

will lead to beef prices increasing by anything from 15 pence to 25 pence per pound? Given the size of the surpluses, why are we not getting substantial reductions in prices, especially as there is great disparity between EEC and world prices?
All who study the Minister's statement and the package will conclude that the settlement is bad for farmers, bad for consumers, and bad for the taxpayers. The Minister has asked the wrong questions, and was bound to be given the wrong answers. May we have a categorical assurance that once all the details have been examined—I see that the Leader of the House is present—we shall have a full debate in prime time on this issue and all the associated regulations?

Mr. Jopling: The hon. Gentleman has asked an enormous number of questions. As he knows, the question of a debate is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.
The hon. Gentleman criticises the package for all sorts of reasons He says that it is bad for consumers, but there is, perhaps for the first time in a Community price package, the prospect of food prices falling. I do not understand how that can be bad for consumers.
The hon. Gentleman says that the package is bad for taxpayers. For the first time, we have taken steps to reduce the ever-increasing cost of the common agricultural policy. I would have expected the hon. Gentleman to welcome that. At the beginning of his remarks, the hon. Gentleman referred to the difference between poorer and richer farmers and said that more should have been done for poorer farmers. I remind him that this country has the smallest proportion of poorer farmers of any Community country. The logical outcome of what the hon. Gentleman said is that the settlement should have been slanted more towards other countries in the Community.
On the question of the balance between cereals and livestock, there is the prospect of a reduction in feed grain prices of 1 per cent. and in the price of breadmaking wheat, which has an influence on feed prices, of 4·6 per cent.
When the hon. Gentleman asked me about future costs, I made it clear that there is a difficulty, and that if budgetary problems arise later in the year we shall have to consider taking the necessary steps at that time to reduce expenditure. That must be faced. The hon. Gentleman should know by now that one can never tell at the beginning of an agricultural year what the seasons will be like, and, therefore, what the yields will be or how animals will grow. There are far too many variables for one to be precise.
It was only with the greatest difficulty that we managed to keep the beef premium arrangement. It will continue at a higher level than when the Labour Government left office. I was very glad that at the last minute I was able to insist that this arrangement should remain part of the agricultural scene.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I recognise the great importance of these matters to Back Benchers. In view of that, I propose to let questions continue until 3 minutes past 5 o'clock. However, I must have regard to the subsequent and equally important business on the Order Paper.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: As regards milk, will the Minister confirm that the quotas are quotas


allocated to the respective member states, and that the additional 65,000 tonnes is an addition to the United Kingdom quota?

Mr. Jopling: I can confirm that the 65,000 tonnes is for Northern Ireland.

Mr. Charles Morrison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that farmers will be grateful that the talks have been brought to a conclusion and that the uncertainty has been removed, even though they may not like where they stand? It would appear from reports in the press that the farmers of some other Community countries will benefit more—or suffer less—than those of the United Kingdom. Will my right hon. Friend explain why?

Mr. Jopling: My hon. Friend is correct in saying that farmers throughout the Community will not like the provisions of the deal. We must accept that. Nobody likes reductions in prices, or the need to reduce production when there is massive over-production.
With regard to the balance between member states, one must take into account the effect of the price changes in real terms as amended by the changes in the MCA system agreed in the package, but excluding the green rate devaluations, which could have taken place in any event. The effect on national prices will be as follows minus 3·5 per cent. in Germany, minus 4·3 per cent. in France, minus 6·7 per cent. in Italy, minus 2·8 per cent. in the Netherlands, minus 3·4 per cent. in Belgium, minus 4·3 per cent. in Luxembourg, minus 5·2 per cent. in the United Kingdom, minus 5·1 per cent. in Ireland, minus 3·5 per cent. in Denmark and minus 12·8 per cent. in Greece.

Mr. Eric Deakins: As agriculture expenditure is not to be reduced below its current level, how does the settlement satisfy the Prime Minister's stipulation that agriculture expenditure should be reduced as a precondition to agreeing an increase in own resources?

Mr. Jopling: There is an understanding in the package that there will have to be a review if in the end the cost of the common agricultural policy continues to rise. If we exceed our budget for the CAP later in the year, the whole thing will have to be reconsidered.

Sir Peter Mills: I appreciate that my right hon. Friend has a difficult task when there are surplus and cuts have to be made. I congratulate him on his success on beef and sheep, and the new proposals for the hill cow subsidy. However, there are two areas of grave concern in British agriculture. First, there is concern that the Irish should not get away with it a second time. In other words, they should not get an increase in allocation next year. Secondly, the effect on the very small dairy producer in the wet areas will sometimes be disastrous. Will my right hon. Friend look very carefully at the marginal land scheme to see whether any assistance can be given to very small farmers who cannot turn to anything else?

Mr. Jopling: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the difficulties of the small dairy producer. A few months ago, I was able to get the Council to agree to extend the less-favoured areas into those marginal areas. That assistance will help 28,000 farmers in the United Kingdom and will be of particular help to the small dairy producer.
I can assure my hon. Friend that there is no guarantee in the deal that Ireland will have an increased quota next year.

Mr. Donald Stewart: The juggling that the Minister has just announced simply underlines the basic lunacy of the CAP. Is the Minister aware that many British farmers would have preferred a defeat such as he has inflicted on the Irish to the total success that he claims on their behalf?
However, will the Minister accept that many hill farmers in Scotland who have been having a hard time will welcome at least what he has done for the price of wool?

Mr. Jopling: Many Scottish hill farmers will warmly welcome the doubling of the suckler cow subsidy. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the lunacy of the CAP, but I hope that he will acknowledge that we have taken a significant and important first step to make the running of the CAP much more rational.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, despite the curmudgeonly attitude of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) and other Opposition Members, mature reflection by the farming industry will probably lead to a realisation that my right hon. Friend has made the best of a bad job? Is he further aware that the move, through the suckler beef premium, to redress the balance in the beef industry will be warmly welcomed in the country's livestock areas? With regard to livestock, is he satisfied that enough has been done about cereals? Can he say anything about the excessive premium which hard wheat enjoyed at the expense of feed wheat and whether he has been able to correct that imbalance?

Mr. Jopling: I had my hon. Friend's area in mind when I spoke about the importance of doubling the suckler cow subsidy. I have been pressing for reductions in the price of cereals because, as I have made clear in the House for a long time, there is a serious imbalance between grain and livestock. We have taken a small step to correct that imbalance, but we must continue to work hard on it.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Minister aware that a farmer was heard to remark during the weekend, after hearing about this disastrous deal, that, far from batting for Britain, this Minister could not get into the Foreign Secretary's second XI? What will he do when farmers demonstrate? Some of them might get their tractors and block the roads. If one of them calls the Minister a scab, will the right hon. Gentleman have him arrested? Is he aware that one of the things that ought to happen now is a ballot about whether we stop in this lousy Common Market?

Mr. Jopling: I shall take lessons about ballots from the hon. Gentleman when they occur in other sections of the economy.

Mr. Peter Hordern: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the result of the settlement will be larger and more expensive surpluses, the impoverishment of the dairy farmer and the continued enrichment of the cereal farmer? Why should the cereal farmer get fatter and the dairy farmer poorer?

Mr. Jopling: All the signs are that there will be an extremely large grain crop in the northern hemisphere this year. If that happens and we get normal harvest conditions—we should also bear in mind the much increased level


of grain production in north America—it is possible that the market price of grain will do quite a lot to help the livestock industry.

Mr. David Penhaligon: Does the Minister agree that the package's final test must be how it affects the individual farmer? Can he begin to answer questions about the implementation of the new milk quota scheme? Who is in charge of it? How will the quotas be calculated? What appeal mechanism will there be? Will there be an independent element to it? What debates will there be on the Floor of the House to give hon. Members the opportunity before those schemes are implemented to suggest that there might be a skew towards small farmers and milk producing areas?

Mr. Jopling: It is always virtually impossible to judge farm incomes because it is never possible to know what the effect of the seasons will be. With regard to the operation of the super-levy, the hon. Gentleman must contain himself because it was not until Saturday morning that the outlines of the directives were finally agreed. We are pursuing urgent talks with the NFU and the milk boards to work out the details. We shall announce the conclusions as soon as possible.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a settlement that allows Southern Ireland, which greatly contributed to creating the problem, an increase as compared with other members of the EEC is disgraceful and not a basis on which many right hon. and hon. Members would regard it possible to grant any more resources to the EEC?

Mr. Jopling: I opposed the proposals for Southern Ireland throughout the discussions, but was forced in the end to accept the package because there would otherwise have been no way in which to have got all the other things that are of benefit to us, especially the continuation of the beef variable premium.

Mr. Tony Blair: Can the right hon. Gentleman be specific about the assistance that he intends to give dairy farmers in areas such as mine, many of whom are not particularly wealthy, operate on tight margins and have been encouraged to expand production but are now being told that they must cut back?

Mr. Jopling: The hon. Gentleman might tell small dairy farmers that the changes have been foreshadowed for many months—some would say for several years. The hon. Gentleman will recall that the guarantee threshold was first put on milk in 1981 when we reached production of 97·2 million tonnes, or slightly less, which is the basis on which the Community's standard quantity has been pitched. As my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) said recently, small dairy farmers are more flexible with regard to coping with surplus milk production, as they can feed it to other livestock. All dairy farmers will have the option of continuing on a lower level of concentrate feeding which, in most cases, ought to allow for reductions in milk yield by reducing the cost of feeding.

Mr. Ralph Howell: Perhaps I might tell my right hon. Friend how disappointed I am at this feeble settlement for the dairy industry. Why could a

uniform system not have been agreed throughout the EEC? Why does it make any sense for any EEC country to increase milk production?

Mr. Jopling: The reason that my colleagues in the Agriculture Council latched on to to justify the increase for Ireland was that milk is a major part of its economy. Milk production is almost twice as important to Ireland as it is for any other Community country.

Mr. Gavin Strang: How many thousands of jobs in the British dairy industry will be destroyed by this settlement? Why did the Government agree to it before they had achieved a satisfactory solution to Britain's net contribution to the budget?

Mr. Jopling: It is impossible at this stage to make any calculation about the detailed effect of the cut. I remind the hon. Gentleman of what his hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) said on 22 March:
we are opposed to the growing level of surpluses, to increasing the cost of the CAP budget and to the proportion of the total Community budget which the CAP absorbs." — [Official Report. 22 March 1984; Vol. 56, c. 1278.]
We have been doing exactly that. That is the result of the package. It is no good Opposition Members pretending that any effects which might result from this package would not have resulted from a package which they say they would have supported because they have exactly the same ends in mind.

Mr. Jerry Wiggin: Will my right hon. Friend be a little more forthcoming than he was to the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon)? Surely his Department, the Milk Marketing Board, or the National Farmers Union, has done preparatory work in relation to on-farm quotas? Does he appreciate that the sooner those details are known to the farmers concerned, the sooner much of this criticism will be abated?

Mr. Jopling: I accept that, but I hope that my hon. Friend will understand that we have been having talks on these matters for many weeks. Until we have the final details of the directive to which the Community agreed—it was not agreed until about 10 o'clock on Saturday morning — we shall need to have further discussions with the farmers' unions and the milk boards. However, I agree that it is important to make announcements as soon as possible. As I said in my statement, we shall do exactly that.

Mr. Bryan Gould: As we have been assuming that when the agreement is fully implemented it is still likely that total agriculture spending will rise by up to 6 per cent, will the Minister confirm that the agreement as it is falls far short of the fundamental reform that the Prime Minister laid down as a precondition for any increase in own resources?

Mr. Jopling: I do not believe that it falls far below the measures needed for fundamental reform. It is a vital first step towards controlling the burgeoning spending and production of foodstuffs under the common agricultural policy.

Mr. Tony Baldry: When Britain has in intervention 142 days' supply of butter and 648 days' supply of milk products, does not my right hon. Friend agree that many farmers, in their hearts, will accept the editorial in last week's edition of Farmers Weekly? It stated that the introduction of milk quotas was the


inevitable consequence of producing too much that the consumer could not or would not buy. That is not pleasant, but it is realistic. Does my right hon. Friend further agree that given some of the hysterical statements in the press today by certain people in the farming community, it would be better if the farming community took on board that now is the time not for panic, but for planning?

Mr. Jopling: I agree very much with my hon. Friend. He is right to suggest that the vast majority of farmers in this country and, I believe, throughout the Community, understand that they have no God-given right to go on producing food that can be neither eaten at home nor sold abroad.

Mr. Brynmor John: In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), the Secretary of State said that people have seen this crisis coming for many years. Will he therefore explain why his Department has been encouraging farmers to increase their herd sizes under the farm and horticultural development scheme so that either they are midway through repaying grants or they are topping them off with bank overdrafts, when there is no guarantee of any income to pay back the grants that the Minister encouraged them to take up?

Mr. Jopling: Many people saw that this crisis was coming for years, but I say to the hon. Gentleman that my two predecessors—my right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker), now the Secretary of State for Energy, and the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Mr. Silkin) have argued consistently for many years that if the Community continued paying itself excessive price increases for agricultural produce, this crisis would come. When those warnings from British Ministers have been ignored over the years, and when price increases have been granted that were higher than was rational, I think that it would have been idiotic to take the hon. Gentleman's advice and to say to farmers, "Do not take any advantage from the price opportunities that the Community is offering you." That seems to be the greatest folly, which I would expect to hear only from the Opposition.

Mr. Andy Stewart: Having considered these proposals since they were announced at the weekend, I would still rather farm in this country than in any other. Will my right hon. Friend reconsider his advice to dairy farmers to ask Ministry advisers to tell them how to cut production, when over the past few years they were the very people who advised farmers how to increase production?

Mr. Jopling: I agree with my hon. Friend that this is the best country to farm in. It has the best prospects for farmers in the whole of the Community. The advisory service can give advice only on the basis of the price structure and the incentives that exist at the time. If there are price structures that make it attractive for farmers to invest and expand, there is no reason why the advisory service should not encourage the farmers and show them how to do that. However, at a time like this, when the political decisions have been taken—rightly, but too late, it may be argued—it is the job of the advisers to explain to the farmers how they can match production to changing circumstances.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: In a throwaway line, the Secretary of State said that there

were likely to be small reductions in food prices. How much will they be—a penny in the pound, a ha'penny in the pound or less? Where is the £500 million, which is the overall cost of the package, to come from? Will it be the industry fund, the social fund, or worse, the regional fund? At least those are funds that we get something from.

Mr. Jopling: It is impossible to make an exact assessment of what will be the effect of the package on food prices. In general, we believe that it will be about neutral, but there are more likely to be price reductions than price increases.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: Is my hon. Friend aware of the reply given by the Minister of State last Friday to my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), which showed that, whereas the Income of a cereal farmer is expected next year to be two thirds higher than it was six years ago, the income of the dairy farmer is expected to be one third lower? Will my right hon. Friend explain why he has brought back from Brussels proposals that will mean the bankruptcy of a great number of dairy farmers? Will he explain the inadequacy of the transitional arrangements? Does he accept that the British dairy farmer will not think anything of the extra production quotas, because they are paid for by the British dairy farmer through the co-responsibility levy, which falls disproportionately heavily upon him?

Mr. Jopling: There will be a reduction in cereal prices. I should like to say to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) that I am not sure whether I quoted a wrong figure for the reduction in bread-making wheat. I meant to say 3.4 per cent. instead of 4·6 per cent., which I think I said. I hope that he will forgive me for that slip of the tongue.
It is wrong to start talking about dairy farmers going bankrupt. We are not certain that that will happen. I believe that the vast majority will be able to adapt to the situation. To allow a one-year transition period before the full rigour of the super-levy is right. I think that most farmers take the view that the sooner we have the full rigour of the super-levy, the better.

Mr. Ron Lewis: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall some of the speeches that he made in Cumbria during the latter part of May and the early part of June in 1983, when he gave assurances to the agricultural community, especially the NFU, that everything would be all right? How will he salvage his conscience now?

Mr. Jopling: I have a perfect conscience with regard to my relations with the NFU in Cumbria. When I last met the chairman of the Cumbria NFU and other members of the union from my constituency, we had a long and friendly discussion, and we ended with an agreed statement that there were no serious differences and difficulties between us.

Mr. Albert McQuarrie: I should like to congratulate my right hon. Friend on obtaining the additional money for the suckler cow premium and the hill subsidies. Can he confirm that the meat variable premium will last for only a year? Why was the milk quota set on the 1981 figures rather than the 1983 figures? Was that by agreement with the NFU, or was it forced upon my right hon. Friend at the meeting? What will be the situation in the pig industry?

Mr. Jopling: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for his support for the doubling of the suckler cow subsidy.
For 10 years now, the premium scheme has been extended for one year only and there is no change in that respect.
With regard to national quotas being based on 1981 or 1983, as I explained to the House a few days ago, it makes very little difference to the United Kingdom whichever one is used. The result comes out to within 1 per cent. on either basis, and therefore it is not of much importance to us.
With regard to the pig industry, we have a new scheme —which I have not mentioned in the details given to the House—whereby skimmed milk, enriched in cream, can be fed to pigs. I believe that that new scheme will be very helpful to the pig industry.

Mr. Thomas Torney: With regard to the cuts in milk production, will the Minister tell us why the French have a 2 per cent. cut whereas the United Kingdom has a 6 per cent. to 7 per cent. cut? Many of the other Common Market countries have had cuts far lower than ours.
Will the Minister bear in mind that we have no surplus in milk and dairy produce whereas most of the other Common Market countries, particularly France, have a surplus? Has the Minister thought of the knock-on effect on unemployment in other industries such as the dairy equipment industry in the United Kingdom?
Finally, will the Minister say whether doorstep delivery of milk is threatened?

Mr. Jopling: With regard to the balance between the United Kingdom and other countries, I ask the hon. Gentleman to read in the Official Report the answer that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) about the price package. The hon. Gentleman will see that there is not the discrepancy between the United Kingdom and other countries that he is suggesting.
As for milk, as I said a few seconds ago to my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie), whether we chose 1981 or 1983 as the basis made virtually no difference to our share of the Community quota. It made a big difference to France. France, by choosing 1981, was able to get an advantage. Therefore, we were able to get the French, in return, to give up all their demands about the levy on small producers, which would have hurt us, and to give up the intensive levy, which again would have hurt us. We were able to have embraced in the super-levy all the non-dairy sales—again something which France did not want. The French got the advantage of a lower reduction, which made no difference to us, but at the same time we were able to quash all the exceptions that would have been so damaging to us.

Mrs. Elaine Kellet-Bowman: Will my right hon. Friend accept that the sheep producers in my area will be very grateful for the deal that he struck on their behalf? But will he equally accept that the milk producers see the deal on milk with respect to Ireland through very different eyes?
The right hon. Gentleman said that people have no God-given right to produce food that cannot be consumed. Why should there be an exception with regard to Ireland?

Mr. Jopling: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her kind words concerning the sheep deal.
I took exactly the same view as my hon. Friend concerning Ireland. I opposed that part of the deal all the way through. In the end, we were invited to vote for the package as a whole. It was because we had achieved several advantages for ourselves—such as the prize of the retention of the variable beef premium — and because we were not able to vote on items individually, that I thought it right to accept the package as a whole.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the Minister clarify the cost of the package? It has been reported to have cost £500 million more, at a minimum. Even given the imponderables, surely some estimate must have been given of the cost, because it would be stupid to sign any agreement with no cost attached to it.
Will the Minister tell us exactly what he meant when he said that if spending is increased beyond the budget limit we shall have to look at the whole thing again? Does that mean that the whole package will be reopened?

Mr. Jopling: With regard to the cost of the package, the same position arises every year. One can never tell what it will be, because one does not know what will be the amount of money needed to implement the intervention prices. The hon. Gentleman should know that that can never be quantified.
With regard to dealing with budgetary problems, I had written into the minutes of the Council statement this:
In the United Kingdom's view, expenditure on the common agricultural policy in 1984 must be accommodated within the existing budgetary provisions. If budgetary problems arise later in the year or in 1985, the United Kingdom considers that the Commission and/or the Council (acting on a proposal from the Commission) should take necessary steps to reduce expenditure to the permitted level.
We have to keep a very close eye on the total cost of the package.

Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It has been a very trying and difficult afternoon, with a lot happening. In excess of 60 Back-Bench members of the Conservative party are members of the Conservative European reform group, and they have a very distinct view on the common agricultural policy. It seems a shame that none of those hon. Members — I do not speak on my own behalf — had the opportunity to put questions to the Minister of Agriculture. I do not make the request on my own behalf, Mr. Speaker, but would it be possible for another member of the group to catch your eye and to have the opportunity to put a point to the Minister?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I had heard about that group but it seemed to me that quite a number of the hon. Members that I called, whether they nominally belong to the group or not, were very critical in their questions.

Nottinghamshire Coalfield (Police Action)

Mr. Joseph Ashton: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the policing and picketing currently taking place in the Nottinghamshire area.
In the past 10 or 14 days there have been 527 arrests in my area, with 12 more today at the power stations. There are 15,000 police on duty or on standby, with about 7,000 or 8,000 on duty at any one time. I have taken my figures from yesterday's Sunday Telegraph, which is not noted for being a paper which exaggerates, or particularly supports the miners.
We now have no-go areas, pass laws and an apartheid system whereby people cannot move around the county or move into Nottinghamshire. The Sheffield Morning Telegraph reported the case of a clergyman from Goldthorpe who was turned back at the Al roundabout on Saturday and told that he would be arrested if he went any further.
Last week, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) each tried to raise the matter under Standing Order No. 10 but there was no time available.
We went to see the Home Secretary last Thursday afternoon, and he would talk to us only about the policing costs; he would not talk about the methods or the type of policing. The Table Office refused to take questions about the police activities. The position now is that very serious incidents are occurring. There was a three-hour debate last Wednesday night in the House. You, Mr. Speaker, rightly restricted it to the discussion of redundancies and would not allow discussion on picketing.
The situation is serious because hundreds of miners are arrested, handcuffed, photographed, kept in cells for up to 26 hours, and refused telephone calls to tell their relatives what is happening to them. Their relatives are informed by the police knocking on their doors at 3 am and saying, "Your husband is in gaol." There are cells in certain police stations with notices on the cell doors stating, "Reserved for NUM pickets."
The law—which we have been led to understand allows for peaceful picketing by six people—is being blatantly disregarded. Every time pickets try to get to a pit they are warned to turn back; if they do not turn back, they are arrested. People are arrested for shouting the word "Scab". Those arrests are supposed to be for insulting or offensive behaviour. When the chief superintendent was asked what word could be used, he said, "Call them `bounders'." Make no mistake about it this is nationally organised policing. It is organised from Scotland Yard. The Government are controlling picketing by arrest. People are being hauled before courts for offensive

behaviour and the courts say that they are not allowed to go near any NCB property except their own houses. They cannot even visit their mothers or sons if they live in other NCB properties.
There are no-go areas and pass laws. The situation is so serious that the House should debate it at the first opportunity.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the policing of the pickets in the coal mining dispute.
I do not under-estimate in any way the seriousness of what the hon. Gentleman has said, but he knows that the difficult decision that I have to take is whether this matter should take precedence over the business set down for today or tomorrow. I listened with great care to what he said, but I regret that I do not consider that it is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10. I therefore cannot submit his application to the House.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As regards the application and your refusal of it, you will recall that during what was known as the winter of discontent, when the Labour Government were in power, several applications were made for emergency debates under the Standing Order and, if my memory serves me right, some were granted.
We all appreciate that the present circumstances are not identical, but there has never been a police presence on the scale that we have witnessed recently. Far from being a parallel with the winter of discontent, the present situation leads many people in the country to believe that civil liberties and freedoms are being threatened in a tremendous fashion, compared with what happened in the winter of 1978–79.
The point has been reached when the House must debate the issue. Paramilitary police forces are roaming all over the midlands stopping people going about their lawful business and, instead of being even-handed with pickets, attacking them in all the ways described by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) and others. Those forces are carrying out the policy of the National Coal Board and the Prime Minister of ruling by fear. It is high time that we had a debate, and I want to know how we can get one.

Mr. Speaker: By refusing the application, I was in no way saying that I do not consider this to be a highly important matter. I have to stick by my ruling and I do not think the situation described by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is entirely compatible with what happened five years ago.

Mr. Kevin Barron: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have ruled on this matter and I think that we must leave it there.

Milk Production

Mr. David Penhaligon: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the EEC curbs on milk production and the implications for the United Kingdom.
Rarely can any hon. Member have asked for the Adjournment of the House when the desire to discuss the matter on the Floor of the House has been so amply demonstrated in exchanges on a statement made a few moments earlier.
Some hon. Members do not realise that the agreement is already 40 hours old and is being legally implemented at this moment. Agriculturists in my part of the world complain that they do not know where they stand and they believe that hon. Members should have an opportunity to argue about how the quotas should be implemented within the United Kingdom.
For the third time in the past eight days I have just asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, "Who is in charge of the quota system?" Even such an elementary question has failed to get an answer. That demonstrates how urgent and specific the matter is.
We are talking about an important industry. In some parts of the country it is the main industry. It involves the livelihoods of people who have worked hard all their lives to build up small farms and who now face serious difficulties. They want to know where they stand and they want us to debate how the quotas should be implemented. If you, Mr. Speaker, do not grant my application, it seems likely that the opportunity for a debate will be denied.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the EEC curbs on milk production.
We have had a long discussion about the matter this afternoon and I do not in any way underestimate its importance, which was amply demonstrated by the interest shown by both sides of the House. However, I have to say to the hon. Member that I do not consider that it is a matter that is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10 today or tomorrow. I therefore cannot submit his application to the House.

SCOTTISH AFFAIRS

Ordered,
That the matter of Scottish Prisons and Penal Policy, being a matter relating exclusively to Scotland, be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee for its consideration.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]

NORTHERN IRELAND AFFAIRS

Ordered,
That the matter of the draft Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order 1984, being a matter relating exclusively to Northern Ireland, be referred to the Northern Ireland Committee for its consideration. — [Mr. Garel-Jones.]

Orders of the Day — Trade Union Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

Clause 8

REQUIREMENTS TO BE SATISFIED IN RELATION TO ALLOTS

Mr. John Smith: I beg to move amendment No. 19, in page 10, line 34, at end, insert
'which breach must be adequately defined'.

Mr. Speaker: With this we may take amendment No.20, in page 10, line 40, after 'employment', insert
`which breach must be adequately defined'.

Mr. Smith: The amendment relates to the provision that requires a particular question to be put in a ballot under part II. The Bill requires a trade union engaging in an official strike to hold a ballot prior to the strike if it wishes to retain its immunity from civil process for actions for damages. However, the Bill goes further and requires a particular question to be put. One might have thought that the question to be asked in the case of a projected strike was self-evident—"Are you or are you not in favour of going on strike?"—but the question required by the Bill is a little more complicated.
The Bill says that the ballot paper must contain
a question (however framed) which requires the voter to say, by answering 'Yes' or 'No', whether he is prepared to take part … in a strike involving him in a breach of his contract of employment".
The result of that provision will be that each ballot paper will have to include a question like, "Are you in favour of taking part in a strike against your employer, which will involve you in a breach of your contract of employment?" Why on earth is it necessary to put those latter words into an apparently simple question? Why do we have to decorate the question with the words "in breach of your contract of employment"?
Some of us suspect a devious purpose behind the drafting hand. The purpose is not hard to find; it is to seek to influence people who read the ballot paper for the first time to answer no rather than yes to the question posed. They may think that the strike is different from others because it involves them in a breach of their contract of employment. Most strikes are automatically in breach of a contract of employment, but the voter may be unaware of that fact. There is no good reason why the proposed words should be put on a ballot paper. We must conclude that the reason why the statute will require those words to be included is to seek to influence the persons making the choice. That raises fundamental questions about the bona fides of the operation. If the Government were acting in good faith they would have nothing to fear from the proper and simple question, "Are you or are you not in favour of going on strike?"
I do not know which Minister is to reply to the debate. It will probably be the Minister of State. He will probably be forbidden to deal with part HI, which he ran away from


in Committee. No doubt he will be peeled off to deal with part II, thereby giving his presence in the Government an atmosphere of legitimacy.
Why is it necessary to introduce these matters in this way? We suggest in the amendment that, as the Government will require the words
involving him in a breach of his contract of employment
to be put on the ballot paper, they should go further and explain to the person casting his vote in which way a strike breaches his contract of employment. In other words, he should be given more detail to enable him to make up his mind.
On Second Reading, Conservative Members thought that we on the Labour Benches were making a fanciful suggestion in pointing out that the words mentioned had to be incorporated in the question. However, hon. Members who served on the Committee will recall that it was conceded by the Government that such words had to be included on the ballot paper. Since then, the thought has occurred to us that we might deal with the issue in the way in which the Government cause health warnings to be placed on cigarette packets. I suggest that there would be nothing illegal in placing an asterisk beside the word "strike" on the ballot paper and then, at the bottom of the paper, making reference to the fact that a strike might be in breach of a contract of employment.
Would it be legal for there to be an asterisk beside the word "strike" with, at the bottom of the ballot paper, the words, "Under the Tory Government's anti-trade union legislation, we are obliged to point out to people voting in the ballot that a strike might possibly be in breach of your contracts of employment"? I suggest that that is the way in which this issue should be handled — in as ridiculous a way as possible—and it seems that it would be legal to do that. I hope that the Minister will confirm that it would be legal, or will deny its legality and give his reasons accordingly.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): We debated the background to this series of proposals at length in Committee. Hon. Members who took part in those debates will know that the Government made it clear that the purpose of having this requirement was to ensure that people realised that the action which they were being invited to take was in breach of contract. I told the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) that it seemed not unreasonable in this life, when we talk a good deal about rights, to talk occasionally about duties, and one of those duties is to stick to one's contract, unless one has good reason to do otherwise.

Mr. Allan Rogers: That is a silly thing to say.

Mr. Gummer: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that is a silly remark, perhaps we should say it more often. We might then realise how important it is to get a balance between rights and duties in society.
The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East made it clear that he thought it ridiculous to ask people fairly and reasonably whether they wanted to go on strike. He asked whether it would be reasonable so to word the question on the ballot paper as to make it as ridiculous as possible. We now know where he stands. He thinks that it is ridiculous to ask people whether they want to strike.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman has opposed the proposition that we should ask people that question, and

he now wishes to make the wording of the question ridiculous. I hope that the public generally realise that the official Labour party takes the view, first, that people should not be asked whether they wish to strike or take industrial action; secondly, that they should not be reminded that such action is contrary to their contract; and, thirdly, that the question should be phrased in such a way as to make the whole thing as ridiculous as possible. That sums up the Labour party's attitude to the Bill and it illustrates how out of touch it is with the 83 per cent. of trade unionists, who believe that the question should be asked.

Mr. John Evans: Will the Minister now answer the major point that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) made, that the prime purpose of including the words proposed by the Government on the ballot paper is to persuade people not to go on strike by putting fear in their hearts that they are in some way being unlawful by breaking their contracts of employment?

Mr. Gummer: The purpose of that part of the question is to remind people of the truth—that taking a certain course of action is contrary to their contracts of employment—and if Labour Members are afraid that by reminding people of the truth they will decide that they do not wish to strike, the reason for the strike must be very flimsy indeed.
Labour Members want to do something which they have every right to do. A trade union can add some explanation to the question if it wishes to do so. What is being suggested is the minimum amount that it would be reasonable to ask. We believe that it is not unreasonable to remind people that going on strike or taking industrial action is, in most cases, contrary to one's contract of employment. In a world in which we make demands for our rights, it is not unreasonable occasionally to remind people of their duties. I hope, therefore, that the House will reject the amendment.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: I shall relate this part of the Bill to what is happening in the coalfields today, and I hope that the Minister will explain how this provision is supposed to work in practice.
When we debated previous trade union legislation, we were assured that peaceful picketing in groups of six would be allowed and that such pickets could talk to people on their way to work and try to persuade them to join a dispute. Although we voted against that, we accepted that the right of democracy must prevail and that people should have the right to ask others to take up a cause.
Previous legislation introduced by the Tories, when enhanced by this Bill, will be at variance with what we were assured would be the effect of their proposals. In the current situation, in arguments about whether people should join a dispute, before or after a ballot, those who are out on strike in the Nottinghamshire coalfield have not been allowed to approach those who are still working.
Because of the policing in my constituency, 527 miners have been arrested in the last 10 days, not for acts of violence—not for pushing and shoving on a picket line —but often for trying to get to the pit. They have been arrested, having been stopped by the police at the Nottinghamshire border at the entrance to the A1, and


told, "Turn back and stay in your own county or you will be nicked," and often they have been arrested virtually for no reason.
One of them complained to me yesterday. He told me that he reached the picket, stood there and said to a man who was walking past on his way to work, "Why not come out with us?" The man retaliated by sticking two fingers in the air, to which my constituent shouted, "Scab." I agree that that might not have been a nice word for him to use, but it is in common use in industrial disputes such as this. My constituent was immediately arrested for using that word. He was arrested not under any industrial relations legislation but for offensive and insulting behaviour. He was detained for 23 hours in a police cell, wearing tight handcuffs for much of the time, was hauled before the court and told to go away and not go near any other NCB property, except his own house.
We are led to believe that that sort of thing will not occur when the type of ballot that we are discussing becomes law. However, despite what we say here, the police have laws of their own.

Mr. David Lightbown: Although the case that the hon. Gentleman is putting does not have a bearing on the subsection before the House, I feel that I must put it on record that a large number of my constituents have voted to work in the mining industry but are being stopped from working by a large number of flying pickets from south Wales. Those pickets are not coming from south Wales to stand peacefully at the pit; six of them——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. If the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) were to deal with that intervention, he would be out of order. Any incident must be related to the amendment.

Mr. Ashton: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I regret having given way. The hon. Gentleman was quite wrong in any case. Some pits in my constituency are on strike and others are working, so I know both sides of the argument. The Bill is supposed to allow industrial relations to be conducted in a peaceful, civilised manner so that ballots can be held and, equally important, so that people may seek to persuade others to adopt their point of view.
Miners at pits threatened with closure have asked why workers at a pit 200 miles away which is not to be closed should have a say in a ballot relating to a threatened pit. That is a perfectly logical argument. It does not seem very democratic to allow people 200 miles away to determine by national ballot the future of those at a threatened pit especially if those whose jobs are threatened are not allowed to put their case to men at other pits.
The police are disregarding present industrial relations law. They switch to a common criminal approach and use offences such as insulting or offensive behviour if they cannot make a case under the industrial relations legislation.

Mr. Roger Gale: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ashton: No, I shall not give way again. I have already given way once and regretted it.
People are now being arrested for offences that have nothing to do with trade union law. They are then hauled into the court and told that they must not leave their homes and villages or cross county borders.

Mr. Gale: rose——

Mr. Ashton: The hon. Gentleman may speak next if he wishes, but I shall not give way to him. These interruptions are intended merely to stop me saying what I intend to say.
People have been handcuffed and locked in cells. The promised telephone call home has been refused. The police say that they will contact the person's relatives. Then, at about 3.30 am, the men's wives or mothers are told that their husbands or sons are in prison. That is not the kind of law that we were promised in industrial disputes.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This justification for the behaviour of louts, thugs and bullies has nothing whatever to do with the clause under discussion.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is for the Chair to decide when an hon. Member is out of order.

Mr. Ashton: The Bill will supposedly ensure peaceful picketing. Having been arrested for shouting the word "scab", the miners asked what they were allowed to shout. The chief superintendent suggested the word "bounder" — a well-known trade union expression. They might even have been prepared to shout out "bounder" if they had been allowed to get to the pit. The successful working of trade union legislation promised by Ministers has simply not taken place.
On Saturday, a local priest asked to go with the pickets peacefully to see what was happening at local colleries because he had received complaints, but the police turned him back at the A1 boundary. Press reports state that the police believed that the priest was going into Nottinghamshire to cause a breach of the peace and warned him that if he continued he would be arrested. He was asked to get out of the car and the officer is reported to have said,
That dog collar does not mean a thing to me. It could be a miner in disguise".
With the best will in the world, it is clear that the Government's legislation is nonsense. The police in the area are working 18 or 20 hours a day, going to bed at about 4 am and out again at 9 am. They are paid £84 for the night shift. There are constant complaints that they are billeted in a Proteus camp just outside my constituency, that the food is lousy and that they are not allowed to go into the village or have any contact with local people. There are complaints that the telephones in the village——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that he must relate his remarks to the voting papers.

Mr. Ashton: I understand that a decision is to be made on 12 April as to whether the NUM is to have a ballot. [Interruption.] Conservative Members should not cheer too soon. The Mail on Sunday opinion poll yesterday showed that 61 per cent. of NUM members favoured strike action. Anyone with long experience of trade union relations, as many of my hon. Friends have, knows that there is a time in an industrial dispute when the union


cannot get the members out and another time when it cannot get them back in. People who have been out for a month or so become hardened and they are determined not to go back without some concession or reward, so let it not be thought that a ballot of the miners would automatically be against strike action. The Government fell into that trap in 1972–73 under the first industrial relations Act. The late Maurice Macmillan forced a ballot on the railwaymen and lost by six to one. That lost him his seat in the Cabinet and he never really recovered his political career afterwards.
We are discussing what is to be allowed in a ballot, how the ballot papers should be framed and how the lawyers come into it. History and experience show that when lawyers get involved, morality, ethics and fair play seem to go out of the window and we finish up with charges of contempt of court and the like. [Interruption.] Conservative Members may laugh, but 527 people have been arrested. The motive is not to charge them, because the courts cannot possibly deal with that number of people, as we discovered at Betteshanger before the war. Those 527 miners cannot possibly be locked up or fined, but they are prevented from taking any further part in the action because they will be arrested for contempt of court. That is entirely outside the concept of the legislation before us. No legislation can cover every eventuality.
I went to the NUM headquarters at Barnsley yesterday and I have a long list of cases—I shall not read them all out, as that would be out of order—showing what has happened to people who wished to exercise their right to picket peacefully. When Mr. Stubbins of Woolley branch had an angina attack the police refused access to Newstead colliery medical centre although the union officials, the nursing sister and even the pit manager pleaded that he should be allowed to receive treatment.
There was another arrest in a pub last week——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that he is straying a good deal. He must confine himself to the amendment.

Mr. Ashton: I am trying to show what happens when legal complexities are brought into these matters, as the Bill seeks to do. I believe that there will be a ballot in the NUM within the next couple of weeks, but I hope that the Secretary of State does not imagine that the Government's legislation is the be-all and end-all of the matter or that it will work. The past two or three weeks have proved that the Government's legislation does not work and is making things worse rather than better.

Sir Raymond Gower: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) took the line that he did because he gave the impression that he does not mind the strike being prolonged. I should have thought that everyone wished for an early settlement of the miners' strike which would ensure the future prosperity of the industry and splendid employment for those who wished to work in it. I hope that that will be the case.
The hon. Gentleman's point is a bad one. He must realise that in this case and in most others men who have been balloted and who have voted to remain at work have been picketed by persons who have not been balloted. It is a remarkable situation. In other words, most of those who ask the men not to go back to work have never been balloted themselves. Therefore, those who have been balloted are being prevented or dissuaded from working by people who have not voted at all. His example is poor.
I must declare an interest. I am a lawyer. I do not think that lawyers have all the answers, but if the law is not enunciated with some sort of clarity the world will be in chaos. I am afraid that legal draftsmen are needed for that. The rights and wrongs of a case must be set out in clear legal terms. I agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) that if possible we should have as simple a question as we can—and a straight yes or no answer. I appreciate that we must never destroy a person's right to withhold his labour. That is an absolute right in a free society which must be regarded with sanctity. However, when a decision of this importance is made, its consequences should be pointed out. In other words, it is a serious matter to vote for a strike. That step might be decided upon but it should be realised that the consequence is to break a contract of employment. Whatever the consequence, the person making the decision should be aware of its importance.

Mr. Allan Rogers: What will happen to the other partner in the industrial relations contract — the employer, who, perhaps arbitrarily, removes the job of a person with whom he has a contract, perhaps even c losing down a colliery and causing great distress to everyone involved? How does the hon. Gentleman suggest that that should be handled?

Sir Raymond Gower: The hon. Gentleman's remarks would have had greater validity 20, 30 or 40 years ago in a strike between employees and employer. In those days the consequences for the employer were serious. He might lose his livelihood. Owing to the nature of our modern industrial set-up an administrator or an employer does not suffer personally. It is the community which suffers. The prolongation of a strike is injurious not to a few individual employers but to the community. That is why it is so serious. Therefore, it is important that the person deciding to strike should realise that it is a serious matter which may be contrary to a contract of employment. It should be brought home to him that his decision to strike will affect the life, comfort and well-being of his community. Therefore, the Bill is not unreasonable.

Mr. Gummer: The House should give full support to the police in their job of ensuring that those who wish to work can. That is the job of the police, and they decide how best to do it. That power is right and fundamental to the way in which we run our society.
Much of what the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) said did not seem to relate directly to the amendment. He talked about a union-wide ballot. There is no question of a union-wide ballot. These ballots are to ask those who are to be called out on strike or to take industrial action whether they wish to do so. That seems reasonable. It is also reasonable to point out, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Sir R. Gower), the seriousness of the question being asked. It is also reasonable to allow a union to decide what other questions it wants to put into that ballot.
This is an odd amendment, because it does nothing but circumscribe what the union should do. The union has every right to do what is in the amendment already. When the public hear what has just been said, it will become more and more clear to them that the sensible way forward is to ask people who are urged to take industrial action whether they want to do so. It will be much better to do that than to carry out this constant attack on the police.

Mr. Ashton: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that canvassing is allowed in elections in which we take part? That was a legitimate purpose at the general election in June and will be the case in future elections, perhaps in a couple of weeks' time. We deplore violence on picket lines because it achieves nothing. But picketing is a form of canvassing. It is against the law to go to a person's house to picket, but what is wrong with peaceful canvassing outside a pit?

Mr. Gummer: To say that violence on a picket line is to be deplored because it achieves nothing seems to me to explain it all. Violence anywhere is to be deplored because it is violence, not because it does not achieve its purpose. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he would not deplore it if it achieved its purpose? That seems to lie behind what he said.
Of course it is reasonable to canvass in an election. The hon. Gentleman was talking about something different. He was talking about intimidation and the circumstances in which people were unable to go to work when they wanted to. Contrary to what the hon. Gentleman says, we want to ensure that people who are called out on strike have the right to decide whether they want to strike or take industrial action. When they are asked that question the seriousness of the matter should be brought home to them. They are perfectly free to decide for themselves how they want to answer the question. The House should support their right to be asked the question and to answer it.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Gummer: I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 10, line 40, leave out
'or interference with its performance'.
This is a short Government amendment to meet a point that was raised by Labour Members on how the ballot question might be put. We have sought to leave out the words
or interference with its performance".
That meets the point about complication, and therefore I hope that the House will be able to accept it.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Gummer: I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 11, line 19, leave out 'voting' and insert 'entitled to vote'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 13.

Mr. Gummer: The amendment tries to meet points that were raised in Committee. We have sought to see that a trade union must take such steps as are reasonably necessary to ensure that those voting in any ballot are informed of the results as soon as reasonably practicable after the holding of the ballot. The amendment will ensure that the obligation to inform applies to those entitled to vote in any ballot, not simply to those voting, otherwise it might be restricted unnecessarily. I hope that the House will support the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 13, in page 11, line 32, leave out 'voting' and insert 'entitled to vote'. —[Mr. Gummer.]

New clause 4

LIMITATION OF MEANING OF 'POLITICAL OBJECTS'

'No expenditure of monies by a trade union shall be held to be in furtherance of a political object if that expenditure is connected with a matter directly affecting the terms and conditions of employment of the members of the union.'—[Mr. John Smith.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. John Smith: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment (a) to the proposed new clause, after first 'the', insert 'security or'.

Mr. Smith: Let me make it clear from the start that I am happy to accept amendment (a) in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo). It is convenient that we discuss both together.
Part III of the Bill deals with the Government's attempt to upset the political relationship between the trade union movement and the Labour party. This part of the Bill has nothing to do with industrial relations, for good or for ill. It has to do with party politics, and a party politics in which the Conservative party seeks to use its parliamentary majority to do as much financial damage as it can to the Labour party, through attempting to weaken the financial relationship between the trade unions and the Labour party.
The House will be aware that there are two parts to part III of the Bill. One seeks to have regular ballots, with one before the next election on whether there should be a political fund in the trade union. Another important part seeks to redefine the political objects under the Trade Union Act 1913. It is noticeable that the Minister of State, who has just addressed the House, has disappeared once again. He did that regularly in Committee. He appears to be under instruction that, because of the sensitivity of his position as chairman of the Conservative party, he should not come near part III. It is noticeable that he has vanished from the Chamber. It could have been no surprise to him that I was likely to raise this point, since I raised it every day in Committee when we were dealing with part III. He appears to feel some sense of shame in seeking to justify it. It is all the worse because, on Second Reading, when I made certain accusations about the Government's purpose in part III of the Bill, he assured me that I need not worry, and that it was a simple case of updating, the detail of which could be gone into in Committee. It is nothing of the kind.
Clause 15 embodies a major extension of what is described as political objects. Under the 1913 Act, political objects related by and large to the election of people to Parliament or to local councils, and most political funds have been seen in that context. The 1913 Act represents in a sense a compromise, in the circumstances of the time at which it was passed, between the claims of trade unions and those who were opposed to them. It has been worked one way or another over the many years since 1913. In the Bill, however, the Government seek a wide extension of what is described as political objects.
In clause 15(1) in particular the definition in the proposed new subsection 3(3) of the 1913 Act is widely extended to cover


… the production, publication or distribution of any literature, document, film, sound recording or advertisement which … seeks to persuade any person to vote or, as the case may be, not to vote for a political party or candidate.
This is the first time that included in the political objects is a campaign to get someone to vote against a political party. Since the Government of the day in the country will always be a political party, it amounts to saying that it is within the political objects of a trade union to run a campaign which might seek to persuade people to vote against the Government of the day. That is why this matter is of some constitutional significance, as well as of importance in trade union industrial relations.
The Government are seeking to circumscribe trade unions campaigning against Government policies which directly affect their members, for example, by cutting public expenditure, by the introduction of privatisation, by denationalisation, or by privatisation of welfare services as well as of industries—a range of policies that can have serious effects upon the members of trade unions. This could in many instances, as we know in the case of privatisation, deprive members of trade unions of their employment, or force them into accepting much poorer wages and conditions from employers who are different from those with whom they started in the public sector. To try to put restrictions upon trade unions in the way in which they campaign against Government policies strikes me as a doubtful proposition. Not only is it unfair as between employer and trade union, particularly when the Government are the employer, but it is constitutionally a bad thing for the Government of the day to do, because it is an attempt to circumscribe legitimate objections being taken to their policies.
New clause 4 therefore seeks to make an exception to that general proposition by making it clear that a trade union should be held not to be following a political objective if its expenditure on such a campaign concerns a matter directly affecting the conditions and terms of employment and, as the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar makes clear, the security of that employment.
Let us consider a number of examples. First, let us take the NALGO anti-cuts campaign before the last election. That organisation, which does not have a political fund, organised the campaign in protest against the Government's policies in the public sector. The Under-Secretary said in Committee that that would have been illegal under this Bill, if the Bill had then been enacted, so we now know that that is so.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Alan Clark): I must correct the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I did not say that the campaign would be illegal. I said that the advertisement that I read out to the Committee would undoubtedly have to be paid for out of the political fund.

Mr. John Smith: So they can run some campaigns, provided Ministers approve the particular posters that they use. I do not think that the Under-Secretary can tell us that the campaign is all right, provided it has quite harmless posters, but that he happened to take the view that a specific poster struck him as unsuitable. The truth is that NALGO's campaign was largely embodied in these posters, and in the meetings that were organised around them. If the Minister checks the record, I think he will find that he admitted that the material used by NALGO in its

campaign would be struck out by the Bill. That gives the lie immediately to the claim made by the Minister of State, who is otherwise known as the chairman of the Conservative party, that no major change was made in the course of the Bill. Of course a major change is made in the Bill. That is why we are spending time on it in Parliament, and why we are going to the trouble of putting it before Parliament, not because of some minor technical modification to deal with changes that have happened since 1913. It is a major change in political balance, it is intended to be that, and the Government want to use their large majority to try to alter the relationship, not only between Government, employers and trade unions, but in the political dialogue in the country, by disadvantaging their opponents as much as possible.

Mr. David Winnick: Does my right hon. and learned Friend not agree that the Minister's intervention must surely give rise to the possibility that, if the clause is not agreed to, and if the union does not have a political levy at the end of the day, there will be so much ambiguity about the position that numerous court cases will ensue to try to decide whether a union is in a position to engage in action, such as against cuts and privatisation?

Mr. Smith: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who brings us to an important point about the practical working of the Bill. It is so wide in its expression, particularly the part that I quoted from clause 15, that no trade union would know in advance, even with the most expert legal advice, whether a campaign fell on the political side of the line or on the general fund side of the line. There would need to be a whole series of court cases to clarify what was meant. That is bad enough. However, it also involves the courts in giving opinions about what is political, which is the very thing that we ought not to be asking courts to do under our constitution.
We should not be seeking the opinions of judges on what is fair political expenditure. It is bad from the trade union point of view, therefore, and it must be bad from a national point of view, to have the uncertainty of the situation exposed, and to have judicial pronouncements made on such matters. Of course it will be very bad for trade unions which do not have a political fund.
As the House knows, many white collar unions, for example, have chosen not to have a political fund. On the whole, they follow a path of non-affiliation to any political party. As a consequence, they have no political fund. It means that the more things we describe as political, the less will unions be able to do them out of the general fund. Either they will have to acquire a political fund to make legitimate criticism of the Government of the day, or they will have to give up and eschew the possibility of making such criticism, and therefore not fight for their members.
The Government are, of course, a major employer, never mind a factor which affects the employment of people who are not employed by the Government. The public sector, even after the present Government have reduced it as much as they possibly can, is still a large employer, and some major trade unions have almost 100 per cent., if not wholly 100 per cent., membership in the public sector. Therefore, when the Government make a move, it seems to me legitimate that the trade unions should be able to protest as loudly and vigorously as they can. Indeed, that is part of the fabric of our democratic society.
I hope, therefore, that the Government will accept new clause 4, because it seeks only to build into the legislation some protection for a trade union that is involved in legitimately defending its members' interests by campaigning against Government policies.

Mr. Spencer Batiste: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman clarify the implications of the new clause and its effect on any of the subsections of clause 15? For example, if any political party put into its party manifesto a provision that it would do whatever a particular trade union or the TUC told it, would that mean that any expenditure by any trade union in support of that party, under new clause 4, would rank as acceptable expenditure?

6 pm

Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentlman's intervention raises a hypothetical and ridiculous proposition and we should not waste our time dealing with such nonsensical points —I do not intend to do so. The hon. Gentleman had plenty of opportunity to follow up the details in Committee, but remained singularly silent. Now that he has a wider audience and some chance of publicity, he has suddenly come to his feet. Having listened to him, I can understand why he chose to be silent before.
The new clause seeks to give some protection when the balance of forces is heavily tipped against the trade unions. It is not as if trade unions were in some privileged position in the expenditure of money on political objects. They form the one set of organisations that is uniquely circumscribed by law on the expenditure of political funds.
All trade unions have to have a separate political fund, which has to be decided by a ballot of the whole membership of the trade union, and every member of the trade union is entitled to contract out of contribution to that fund. We know that all other free and independent organisations do not have such circumscriptions. Companies are not obliged to make their political contributions out of the political fund—they are allowed to dip into the general fund. They do not have to go and get the approval of the membership for that, but can do it by a decision of the board. Shareholders are not given the right to dissociate themselves from decisions with which they disagree.
I can tell the Government that the minimum that the Labour party will insist on for companies is that they must be required to have a separate political fund for any contributions that they make for political purposes and that that political fund must be sanctioned by some general measure of agreement within the company. Individual shareholders, and perhaps others, must be given the right to contract out. The Conservative party has chosen to enter this arena and to try to change the rules on trade unions and put them in an even more disadvantaged position. I warn the Government that the Labour party's reply is to apply the same principles to the people who finance the Conservative party. In the name of fairness, equity and parity, the same will be applied to companies.
Later in the day we shall no doubt hear a great deal of talk about rights and freedoms and about individual rights, but no voice will be raised among Conservative Members about the rights of individual shareholders and others who disagree with the contribution of funds out of the general

funds of the company—not out of the political fund—in support of the Conservative party and other Right-wing organisations.
For over 70 years, trade unions have been uniquely circumscribed, and if this Bill goes into law—even if this new clause is passed, because it does not cure the whole problem—there will be problems. For example, as we approach the next general election, trade unions in the oil industry might be campaigning for the reestablishment of a public sector oil company, which the Labour party will be proposing at the next general election. Such unions will be circumscribed because they will get the money for such a campaign out of their political funds. However, a multinational oil company —for example, an American one representing American shareholders—will be able to buy all the space that it likes in the press to campaign here. It will be able to defend its foreign-owned company rights while British trade unionists, living and paying taxes in Britain, will be circumscribed in their conduct of such a campaign.
The Conservative party, which is supposed to be the party of patriotism, is making this suggestion. It is more concerned, in that instance, with defending the property rights of foreigners than with defending the rights of British workers. I should like to hear my example contradicted by Conservative Members. Part III is a shoddy political manoeuvre through which the Government, with the advantage of their temporary large majority, intend to change the balance and framework of political life.

Mr. Gale: About 15 minutes ago, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman will learn from the Official Report, he implied, as he is implying now, that this legislation is an attack on Labour party funds. By what arrogance does he assume that trade unionists, many of whom do not vote for the Labour party, would wish to contribute only to the Labour party?

Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman knows that trade unionists who do not wish to do so can contract out, as they do in large numbers. I would believe that the hon. Gentleman was being sincere if I saw him supporting a proposition which said that company shareholders should be given the same right as individual trade unionists, and which put the same obligations and circumscriptions on the sources of funds for the Conservative party as he is seeking to put on those for the Labour party. The hon. Gentleman must know that shareholders are not consulted. There is no special political fund, and the money comes out of the general assets of the company. It is legal for a board of directors to commit the funds of the company.
If the hon. Gentleman wishes, we could put trade unions in the same position as companies. Trade unions would therefore be able to make donations out of general funds without having a political fund. That suggestion can be considered in the future. We can either put companies in the same position as trade unions in the sense that both need political funds, or they can be put in the same position and pay political contributions out of general funds.
I finish with the proposition that if the Government reject the new clause, as amended, that will show that they are careless of the rights of trade unionists campaigning for the legitimate interests of trade union members against the Government of the day. We are talking about the plurality


of our democracy and the importance of people speaking out loudly, clearly and without restrictions, with their objections against the Government of the day. Our new clause seeks to preserve that essential liberty and to rescue from this shabby political manoeuvre some points of principle that might be of protection to the trade unionists in the future.

Mr. Ian Mikardo: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) for saying that he is willing to accept my amendment, which would allow trade unions to campaign freely for security of employment for their members, as well as, in the terms of the new clause, for the maintenance of standards of wages and conditions of their members. Before I refer to my amendment, I shall say a word or two about the new clause.
The rejection of the new clause would limit the powers, rights and opportunities of a trade union to campaign publicly about the wages and conditions of its members. There are some Civil Service unions which have felt from time to time that the Government have reneged on agreements reached between the Government as employer and the trade unions representing the civil servants through the machinery of negotiation in the Civil Service. There have been times when at least some, and sometimes all, Civil Service unions have claimed that the Government have reneged on agreements and that, as a consequence, the members of those unions are not being paid the wages due to them under the terms of the agreements covering Civil Service wages.
If the new clause is rejected, it will be impossible for the Civil Service unions to place an advertisement in the paper, for example, to say that the Government are reneging on their agreements. Civil Service unions do not have political funds. However, the Government could take all the advertisements that they wish, with no inhibition, to put their side of the argument, while the trade unions would be forbidden to use the same medium to put their case against the Government.
The Government would also have ample opportunities for putting their case verbally in exchanges across the Floor of the House by ministerial statements, and so on. The unions would not be permitted to pay £200 or £300 to hire Central Hall across the road for a meeting of their members to protest about the Government's breach of wages negotiations. The unions do not have a political fund and cannot hire the hall out of their general funds, even though the purpose of a meeting is, by definition, merely to protect the wages and working conditions of their members. That would be called a political meeting, but it is not political for the Government to do something similar.

Sir Raymond Gower: Is the hon. Gentleman quite sure about that?

Mr. Mikardo: Yes, absolutely.

Sir Raymond Gower: I doubt that he is correct.

Mr. Mikardo: The hon. Gentleman may have doubts, but, with great respect, he has come fresh to this debate. This is not a matter in which he has greatly specialised. I spent long hours discussing the Bill in the Standing Committee, and I have been involved in discussion on all the previous trade union Bills. I know them all by heart. I hope that the House does not consider it a piece of

arrogance if I say that there is a better than even money chance that I know a little more about this subject than the hon. Gentleman. He asked me the question in his usual courteous way, and we are old friends. My answer is, "Yes, I am 110 per cent. sure that what I am saying is right." A Civil Service union would be debarred from hiring the Central Hall, Westminster, to hold a meeting to protest about a reduction in the rate of increase in wages, though discussions are supposed to be allowed by the Civil Service's negotiating machinery.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I am interested to hear the hon. Gentleman's certainty that he is right. I should be grateful if he would point to the clause that makes his point, because it is certainly not said in the proposed new section 3(3)(e), as set out in clause 15.

Mr. Mikardo: I said that if the new clause was rejected that would be a sign of the Government's intentions. If the hon. Gentleman is right, there is no reason why the new clause should not be accepted. That is a clear test.
As hon. Members will have noticed, my amendment deals not with wages and conditions, but with security of employment. A proposal may be made to privatise the work presently being done by a royal ordnance factory located in a certain city. Hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of people could lose their jobs. They have a right to campaign against any decision that would result in their losing their jobs. The city council, interested in the welfare of its people and the loss of some rateable value, could hold a town meeting to explain the consequence of the Government's proposal, and that would be all right. A trade union could not do the same.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I rather doubt it.

Mr. Mikardo: If a trade union could do so, there is no reason why the new clause could not be accepted. A trade union could not hold that meeting, because such a meeting would be held to be a political act. If a union did not have a political fund, it would not be permitted to pay out of its general fund for the hire of the city hall to hold a meeting similar to that held by a city council.

Sir Raymond Gower: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Mikardo: I shall just develop this point. I shall gladly give way later, as the hon. Gentleman knows.
I shall move from that rather hypothetical example to matters about which I have first-hand knowledge, because they involve members of my union, amongst many others. Two or three years ago, one of the Government Departments was contemplating a purchase, which it subsequently made, of a new type of air navigation and control equipment. There were three tenderers—a Dutch manufacturer, and two British manufacturers. The Department appeared to be favouring the Dutch manufacturer because the two British manufacturers were tearing each other apart. The two British manufacturers got together to produce a joint tender, resulting in two tenders—one from Holland and one from Great Britain. Not surprisingly, the two British companies sought to use the influence which they could bring to bear on a Department through hon. Members by measures which are common, readily accepted and proper. They brought that


influence to bear to ensure that a British tender was accepted so that work could be provided in two factories in Britain.
The British firms briefed Members of Parliament, sent out circulars, made presentations and got in touch with the Minister concerned. That was fine. The unions that were worried about the jobs that would be involved in two factories in eastern England did the same. The Bill as it stands will mean that the unions will now be prevented from taking such action. How can that be right?
I have a more recent example. There is an argument about whether Stansted airport should be developed, or whether Heathrow should be further developed. That argument seems to arouse much passion. Last autumn the British Airports Authority, which is one of the parties to the argument, hired a hotel room at the venue of each of the party conferences. The BAA put on a presentation to show why it thought certain action should be taken at Heathrow. People were invited to hear the submissions. I went along from the Labour party conference, and the same presentations were held at the time of the Conservative party conference. The BAA showed us some pictures and graphs, and gave us a little speech. It gave us a drink and a snack as well, and there is nothing desperately wrong with that. The decision on the airport was of interest to the authority, and it made its presentation, without inhibition, from public funds.
The BAA's action was similar to that of the two companies which had tendered in my other example—Plessey and Marconi—which brought influence to bear out of their public funds. If it wished, the local authority controlling the area in which Stansted airport lies could make presentations giving the other argument, because rateable values in Stansted might increase. The local authority could take money out of public funds, albeit a slightly different form of fund.
Trade unions in Stansted wanting the area to be developed to provide employment could not make presentations at party conferences if they did not have a political fund. They would not be able to do it out of their general fund. They would not be able to campaign for job creation or — if they were on the other side of the argument—to provent existing jobs from disappearing, for one reason only—because they were trade unionists. If they were local authorities, companies or anyone else who thought that they had an interest, they could do it. Anyone can do it except trade unions.
The new clause is a test of the Government's bona fides and of whether they are trying to handicap the ability of trade unions to campaign for the security of their members' jobs, pay and conditions of employment. If the clause goes to a vote, the vote will be a test of the Government's honesty and sincerity.

Mr. Lightbown: I should like to discuss two points, but principally the one mentioned by the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) about company contributions compared to trade unions' contributions.
Shareholders of private and public limited companies are well protected under existing Companies Acts. There is a requirement that any political contribution in excess of £200 made by a company must be clearly shown and declared on the balance sheet. Secondly, company

directors are required to use the companies' assets and resources properly. They are liable to up to seven years gaol for their improper use. If the donations—which can be made to all the political parties and not specifically to one, which is what we are talking about in relation to trade union political donations — are declared, shareholders have the right to question and caution their directors if they are not satisfied.

Mr. Winnick: If the hon. Gentleman considers that that is right for companies—we know that in practice all their contributions go to one party—would he agree that trade unions should be allowed to act similarly and that all the money spent for political purposes should come out of their general funds, provided that they explain what they have done and are willing to account to their annual conferences? If what the hon. Gentleman suggests is all right for companies he must agree, logically that it must be all right for trade unions.

Mr. Lightbown: I do not accept that all company contributions go in one direction. There is a great deal of evidence to prove that different political parties have benefited from donations from private and public limited companies.
The second point relates to——

Mr. Derek Fatchett: rose——

Mr. Lightbown: I shall not give way, because I have given way once already and I wish to pursue this point further.
My second point relates to whether the union membership should decide whether to have a political fund. It is perfectly reasonable that it should be allowed to decide that matter. If it does, the use of the fund would require defining. I do not accept some of the subjective statements made by the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo). I believe that he has been inadvertently misleading the House about the consequences of the Bill.
It is in the interests of trade union members that the use of political funds should be clearly defined. I believe that that is what the Bill proposes to do. It does not propose in any way to restrict trade union activities. The Bill proposes that if a union has a political fund it can be used for any political purpose but that if there is only a general fund, which belongs to the members, that must be used in the members' interests and not for a specific political purpose. That is the principle that the Bill embodies.

Mr. Tony Blair>: I suppose that it is a statement of the obvious to say that legislation such as this is a party political measure, but this is a particularly grubby party political measure. If we are to deal with the funding of political parties — that is what part III is about—it is absurd and hypocritical to deal with trade unions and their political funds but not to attempt to deal with the position of companies and the Conservative party. If Conservative Members do not like that, that is hard luck, because the Opposition will continue to say that it is disgraceful to introduce such a measure without attempting to deal with the position of companies.
If the best that can be said is what we have just heard from the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-East (Mr. Lightbown), our case is strong. If a shareholder does not like what the company has done, the shareholder has no option but to sell his shares and get out. Trade unionists can contract out of contributing to a political party and still retain the benefits of trade union membership.
It is absurd to say, as the hon. Gentleman did, that companies are somehow treated in the same way as trade unions. Of course they are not. Trade unions, unlike any other association, are restricted by special rules governing the setting up and administration of political funds. There is considerable feeling, right across the political spectrum, that the Bill is part of a series of measures designed to locate centres of opposition to the Government and suppress them. The Bill and its provisions are in line with the provisions now being introduced for local authorities.
There are three points on which perhaps all hon. Members could agree. I shall be interested to see whether Conservative Members disagree with them. First, it is extremely difficult to distinguish properly between a trade union's political and industrial activities. For example, a trade union that campaigns for particular working hours or wages is plainly conducting an industrial campaign. There can be circumstances where trade unions mount a campaign against a Government proposal—the abolition of wages councils—where it is extremely difficult to define whether it is a political or industrial campaign. Most people would agree that that can be a difficult distinction to draw.
Secondly, it is wrong for anyone to attempt to restrict the ability of trade unions to campaign against Government policy. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree with that proposition.
6.30 pm
Thirdly, that proposition becomes particularly important when dealing with such a Government as this one. It is especially difficult to decide what a campaign against Government policy or the Conservative party is with a Government under whom party ideology is written into the very legislation that they introduce. This is a Government of conviction who express themselves in terms of their mandate. That being so, it is all the more important that we should have legislation that will enable trade unions to campaign contrary to that Government policy. Any legislation—I shall say later why this legislation does not do this—should enable a trade union to pursue its legitimate industrial interests and to campaign politically against the Government of the day, and any legislation that fails to do that is seriously defective.
The Bill introduces two major changes which greatly restrict the ability of trade unions to do that. First, whereas the Trade Union Act 1913 concerned campaigning in favour of particular political candidates or parties, this Bill introduces the novel concept of campaigning against particular political parties. That is an essential and major change. There is no doubt that its purpose is to catch anti-Tory campaigns. The fact that the Bill does not deal with the position of companies is particularly relevant. After all, trade unions will generally be opposed to the Conservative party —[Interruption.] The majority of trade unions are certainly opposed to the present Conservative party. The campaigns waged by the trade union movement have been waged against this Government. In Committee it was put to the Under-Secretary of State that the campaign of the National and Local Government Officers Association against Government cuts in the public sector was one of the main campaigns to be caught by the Bill. That point was accepted, and it had to be. The Bill is designed to deal with

campaigns against particular political parties, so we are perfectly justified in saying that its intention is to catch anti-Tory campaigns.
Secondly, the 1913 Act in general concerned campaigns in favour of particular political candidates or parties. But a broader subsection in that Act covered political meetings or documents of a more general nature. It had always been thought that the reference was to campaigns in favour of a particular political party, but that subsection widened the scope so that the reference was not just to elections but to campaigns of a more general nature. The trade union funding of the building at Walworth road—the Labour party's headquarters—was caught under that subsection.
That subsection of the 1913 Act made it clear that it was only if the main purpose of the campaign was party political that it was caught by the Act. There are no such words or qualifications in this Bill. The danger is obvious. When I listed the three propositions that I hoped that hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber could accept, I pointed out that it was extremely difficult to decide which campaigns were against a particular Government and which were against a particular party. Campaigns will often fit into both categories. Let us take the example of NALGO's campaign against public sector cuts. This Government have strongly identified themselves with cuts in the public sector, so it is natural that when campaigning against such cuts, NALGO should say, "And this is a Tory Government measure." The legislation is seriously defective if it will not allow such campaigning. Our worry is that by removing the words "the main purpose of', such a campaign will be caught by the new definition in the Bill even if that part of the campaign which is anti-Tory is incidental to the main campaign.
In addition, a campaign may be said to be against the Government by implication. It may be said that the campaign is not expressly declared to be against the Government, but that the correlation between the Government and the particular policy is such that it amounts to a campaign against the Government. There is no safeguard against that.
The step taken at GCHQ is strongly identified with this Government. The trade unions may say that what the Government have done is wrong and that the people should remember to use their vote properly the next time there is a general election. How can it be said that that should be seen as unlawful unless unions have gone through the special and elaborate process of setting up a political fund? Yet that is precisely the sort of opposition to the Government that is at risk if the Bill is enacted unamended.
The purpose of the new clause is to focus attention on the ability of trades unions to protect the interests of their members, as they see it. Provided that they are protecting their job security and the terms and conditions of their employment, they should be permitted to run a campaign as they want, without needing to have a political fund. Trade unions are particularly disadvantaged. Other voluntary associations can run any campaign they wish, and can campaign as hard as they like on political subjects for or against political parties.

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): That statement, which has been repeated at frequent intervals, is wholly untrue.


Many organisations are barred from similar activity, largely because they also benefit from the system. I refer to the many charitable organisations.

Mr. Blair: I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman's point is. My point is that the trade unions, as voluntary associations, are in a different position from other voluntary associations. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was making my point for me. There can be no justification for trade unions being in that different position. However, if they are to be in it, their right to run a campaign that is both political and industrial should, at the very least, be safeguarded. The new clause seeks to do that. If Conservative Members oppose it, they will not dampen but increase the fears of many people, across a broad range of political views, who fear this Government as an authoritarian and repressive Government, uninterested in democratic rights.

Mr. Batiste: I oppose the new clause for a variety of reasons, which I shall deal with shortly. However, I wish first to deal with the point raised by the hon. Members for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) and for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo). They said that without the new clause it would be impossible for trade unions to carry out their normal and traditional functions on behalf of their members from their general funds. The hon. Member for Bow and Poplar said that he knew by heart every trade union Bill that had been passed since he became a Member of Parliament. However, with great respect, he was invited to point out the clause that had that effect and refrained from doing so. I shall give way to him if he wishes to do that now.

Mr. Mikardo: I gladly respond. There are many examples, but I shall quote just two, because an intervention should be brief. First, my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) has just pointed out that at a protest meeting someone is sure to say, "This is a Tory Government measure." That carries with it the implication that those involved do not support the Tory party, and, in fact, support another party. Any aggrieved member can take the union to court.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman should look at clause 15, which contains the proposed new subsection (3)(d) to the 1913 Act. My union sponsors me, although I do not get any money out of it personally. Therefore, it contributes to the maintenance of the holder of a political office. On that ground I feel an obligation to argue in this place, when I agree with it, the case of the union. A company can hire any hon. Member without any restriction and pay him a subvention in just the same way. It can pay him out of its general fund, with no inhibition.
I have given two examples. I could give more if there were time.

Mr. Batiste: The hon. Gentleman's first point was that it might be mentioned at a meeting that it was a measure of a Conservative Government and that that does not fall within the confines of the proposed new subsection (3)(e), which refers to the expenditure of money
in connection with any conference or meeting held by or on behalf of a political party or any other meeting at which business of a political party is transacted".
To argue against the Government as a Government—whether Conservative or Labour, as in the past—does not imply any party political activity that requires the use of a political fund.
The comparison with connections with a business has been the traditional tactic of Opposition Members. Whenever they find themselves unable to debate the terms of the Bill, they raise the prospect of a Companies Bill. However, I want to deal with the present Bill and the new clause.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: My hon. Friend might wish to draw the attention of the House to the definition of "political office" in the proposed new section (3B). The definition is quite clear and does not include office within the trade union movement. Therefore, the point made by the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) was entirely false yet again.

Mr. Batiste: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. That point shows up many of the misconceptions raised by Opposition Members.
The hon. Member for Sedgefield refused to deal with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), who said that charities had traditionally managed, without any difficulty, to steer a proper course between pursuing their own interests and pursuing political interests. I do not see that there will be any difficulty for the unions either.
New clause 4 has been presented as a minor clause—a little clause in sheep's clothing which protects the traditional rights of trade unions. In fact, it is a ravenous wolf of a clause which strikes at the heart of what is set out in clause 15.
The hon. Member for Sedgefield gave the example of wages councils. Let us consider how it could be used to negate the whole of clause 15. I raised this point earlier in a question to the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), who declined to reply to it. Let us suppose that a trade union wishes to campaign against the abolition of wages councils. Hon. Members who have listened to debates in the past will know that I have considerable reservations about the wages councils. That is by the way. If a trade union wishes to campaign in favour of the retention of wages councils, there is no problem under clause 15. However, a trade union might ask the Labour party to include in its manifesto a provision that, if elected, a Labour Government would maintain or restore the wages councils.
New clause 4 says:
No expenditure of monies by a trade union shall be held to be in furtherance of a political object if that expenditure is connected with a matter directly affecting the terms and conditions of employment of the members of the union".
New clause 4 would take precedence over clause 15, and a union whose members were affected by wages councils could say that the result of the general election would directly affect the terms and conditions of its members and that, therefore, the general funds of the union could be used to contribute to the funds of the party, to pay expenses or to provide services for the party or to help with the candidate's expenses. The clause makes a dramatic and major change to the whole basis on which trade union law has operated since 1913.

Mr. Blair: Will the hon. Gentleman deal with the hard case? If the Government announce their decision to abolish wages councils, and if trade unions decide to run a campaign against that decision and issue a statement saying that they will oppose the abolition of the wages


councils, which is a further Tory attack on the living standards of working people, will that be caught by subsection (3)(f)?

Mr. Batiste: In my view, anything which in the course of a campaign was directed against the Government as the Goverment or dealt with policy as policy would be a legitimate trade union activity. Only when the union went on to urge its members not to vote Conservative at the election would there be an offence against the provisions set out in clause 15.

Mr. Ashton: I wish to give a non-hypothetical example. Last week the National Coal Board used taxpayers' money to take advertising space in all the newspapers in the north of England to put the case for the closure of Cortonwood and other pits. That, presumably, would be a legitimate expenditure under the Bill. However, if the NUM took out an advertisement to reply to the NCB and to protest strongly about what it was doing, that would be political activity and would not be allowed.

Mr. Batiste: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood my point. I will take his example. If the NUM chooses to take out an advertisement——

Mr. Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. At the Department of Employment there is a Secretary of State and three Ministers, but there is not a Minister present today.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a matter for me

Mr. Batiste: If the NUM chooses to take out an advertisement to oppose Government policy as Government policy, that must be a matter for the union as a matter of ordinary trade union activity. If the NUM went further and if, for example, the Labour party manifesto made certain specific commitments to the mine-workers in relation to their terms and conditions, under new clause 4 the NUM could then use the whole of its general fund to support the Labour party in an election campaign. That is why I oppose the new clause.

Mr. Mikardo: It does not matter that I or my hon. Friend disagree with what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but in Committee the Under-Secretary precisely contradicted what he is saying. The NALGO campaign did not mention the Labour party or the Conservative party. There was nothing about voting. However, the Under-Secretary confirmed that under the terms of the Bill that campaign would be barred.

Mr. Batiste: I think it is perfectly feasible to say that a campaign could be run in either of two ways by a trade union. It could be run as charities run their campaigns on matters of policy, so that they do not offend against the political rules, or it could be run as a squarely political campaign designed to bring about the election or re-election of a particular Government.

Mr. Alan Clark: May I assist in the development of the argument? The House has heard the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) say that the NALGO advertisement said nothing about voting. In fact, it included a facsimile ballot paper and an exhortation to use one's vote.

Mr. Batiste: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend. That point shows how fundamentally Opposition Members have sought to misrepresent the facts throughout the debate on the Bill.
Far from demonstrating the bona fides or otherwise of the Government, new clause 4 is designed to change radically the whole groundwork of the law on political contributions by trade unions. It may be dressed up to look innocuous, but its effects would be far-reaching and damaging, and it should be rejected.

Mr. Gordon Brown: Without realising it, the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-East (Mr. Lightbown) made the Opposition's case, as he advocated that trade unions should publicise the contributions that they receive and be free to rescind their political funds. That is exactly the case under the 1913 Act. The problem is that the Government are trying to go even further than the detailed restrictions in the 1913 Act. The hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) appears to misunderstand the Bill's scope. He seems not to realise that, in 1913, political funds were designed to cover the election expenditure incurred by candidates for a political office. In 1984 we are witnessing political funds being regarded as having to cover election expenditure incurred by candidates for political office and other expenditure for all activities, whether that be supporting a political party or opposing the Government of the day. By widening what is construed as a political objective, the Government are narrowing the scope for political activity by trade unions. All that we have heard today is designed to obscure the central issue of the Bill, which is to ensure that trade unions, the political donations, activities and representation of which are already regulated by the Government down to the minutest detail, are to be subjected to even more detailed restrictions.
The essence of clause 15 is that if a trade union has no political fund or has one but loses it as a result of the Bill, it will lose its right to dissent from the Government. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) made it clear that, although any company can give any amount of money without restriction to support privatisation, a trade union such as NALGO will, as a result of clause 15, be denied the right to protest against a Government who impose privatisation. Indeed, because of the Employment Act 1980, the Post Office Engineering Union is powerless to take industrial action against privatisation because the courts deemed such action political. If the Bill is passed, by 1985 such a union in similar circumstances—without a political fund and with its members' jobs and livelihoods at stake—will be unable to take industrial or political action to oppose privatisation. Under the Bill nurses could be prevented from defending the Health Service against the Government without risk of litigation. Loyal civil servants in the royal dockyards who are members of politically unaffiliated trade unions could be prevented from opposing the Government even when, as now, that Government are threatening their jobs and national security.
As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East said, the Bill has nothing to do with improving industrial relations or the giving of new rights to individual trade unionists but everything to do with stifling political activity. It is designed to disable, if not destroy, by a crude political bank raid, the Conservative party's political opponents. This partisan and sectarian


Bill should be seen by Conservative Members in its historical context. It will irreversibly disrupt and destroy a legislative compromise that was first agreed in 1913 and reaffirmed as a lasting settlement on political funding after the second world war. It was a compromise that was introduced by Sir Winston Churchill in 1911 and again commended by him to the House in 1951 as a well established custom. He said:
Matters affecting the interests of rival parties should not be settled by the imposition of the will of one side over the other".
Many supporters of the Conservative party recognise, as Sir Winston Churchill would have, the inequity of the Bill. They know that what is seen as good for trade unionists among Conservatives might, if extended to the political generosity of companies, be far from good for the Conservative party. Trade unions must establish separate political funds before being able to give a penny to a political party. They must ballot their members to initiate those funds. They must report in detail to a Government-appointed officer on all of their political activities. Members of trade unions can already unilaterally opt out of the union's decision with regard to political funding and appeal to four courts and tribunals to do so. Is it therefore even-handed for limited companies to have the unlimited right to give unlimited amounts of money to the Conservative party? Trade unions can already abandon their political funds as a result of no more than a routine conference decision but are to have to ballot their members every 10 years. Almost every public issue on which unions want to campaign could now result in a change to their political fund. Is it therefore right that there are no controls on the hundreds of companies that make donations to the Conservative party?
There is a free-for-all in company contributions. There is no need for a separate political fund, a ballot of shareholders to initiate it, no provision for any individual shareholder to opt out, no policing of such contributions by any officer of the state and, most relevant of all to new clause 4, no mention of party political objectives in any memorandum of association of any company that makes a donation to the Conservative party. A future Labour Government will have to change that. The House should be aware that there are legal experts who believe that companies that have no stated political objective in their constitution but give money to political parties do so quite illegally. The House will know that, last year, the League Against Cruel Sports Ltd. was prevented from donating money to the Labour party on the grounds that it was a limited company, that the objective was political and that political objectives were no part of the league's purpose as a company. The law that governs the League Against Cruel Sports must also govern Plessey, Consolidated Gold Fields, Trafalgar House, Taylor Woodrow, Pritchard Services Group, the builders, the oil companies and the privatised defence contractors who have given more in one year to the Conservative party than one trade unionist will give to the Labour party in his working life.
Ministers have argued in defence of the Bill that it is necessary to curb widespread abuses in the trade union movement. If there are abuses in the funding of political parties they are confined almost entirely to the companies that donate to the Conservative party and yet remain above the law. What possible argument can the Government advance for this new intrusion into the political affairs of

the trade union movement? A Royal Commission, reporting on trade unions and the propriety of their political contributions, concluded that there was no evidence that the protection afforded to individual trade unionists was inadequate and that there was no evidence that existing safeguards were ineffective. When did a Royal Commission report similarly on company contributions? Year in, year out, a Government-appointed officer adjudicates possible complaints from 7 million trade unionsts, receives an average of only 20 and only one or two each year are worthy of futher investigation. When will Britain's shareholders enjoy similar safeguards?

Mr. Bill Walker: rose——

Mr. Brown: I shall give way soon.
Where is the evidence of the need to change the nature of political funding? A Select Committee which investigated the political contributions of trade unions heard the Engineering Employers Federation say that it had no evidence that trade unionists were paying such contributions unwillingly. Could a Select Committee say the same for the millions of small investors in pension and insurance funds, who are unwittingly contributing to the Conservative party and cannot look to anyone to protect their right to abstain from donating to the Conservative party?
By widening the definition of political activity with a view to limiting the political activity of trade unions, the Government are trying to suppress—as has become all too familiar recently—the previously uncontested right of trade unionists to dissent. They are pursuing what the Foreign Secretary has admitted is a goal of apolitical trade unionism. They are seeking radically to change the nature of political life throughout the country.
7 pm
Before us we have a massive plan for state intervention to regulate in the minutest detail the open, honest and humble contribution of 7 million trade unionists to the Labour party, while on the other hand—Ministers must answer for this—there thrives a free market in political donations to the Conservative party, a clandestine form of competition that all companies are encouraged to enter, in which the prizes are knighthoods, peerages and tickets in the privatisation lottery; even shipyards and dockyards are sold off at bargain basement prices.
The Government's proposals are so obviously partisan, so nakedly punitive and so blatantly unbalanced in their effect on the finances of the political party that I represent that they are a disgrace to our parliamentary democracy. The House should have the good sense to throw them out.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: It is one of the sad aspects of political debate that the Opposition appear to be using at all levels of attack the deliberate policy of misleading people about the result of the Government's policies. That is unfortunately true of the Greater London council in its absurd campaign against the abolition of the GLC. It is bombarding the people of London with lies and deceit about the Government's plans in that respect. I was saddened to hear the same tactics being followed in the debate.
I shall bring us back from the wild flights of fancy that Opposition Members have been following to clause 15, which the debate is supposed to be about. It limits the expenditure of general union funds for political purposes.


I refer to political purposes as defined in that clause, not to a wider definition, as the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) seemed to suggest. I shall answer the three specific points that he put. He requested that someone should do so, and it gives me great pleasure to oblige him.
First, he suggested that there would be difficulty in distinguishing between political and industrial objects of trade unions, which may or may not conflict with the Bill. In the wider terms of what is or what is not a political act, the hon. Gentleman would have a valid point, but in relation to the Bill, the political objects are defined narrowly in clause 15. In any debate as to whether an act is in contravention, that definition of "political object" applies, not a wider definition. It is clearly set out in clause 15, particularly in paragraphs (d), (e) and (f), which have given rise to specific disagreements between both sides of the House. However, the political purposes are clearly defined, and there should be no disagreement.

Mr. Blair: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there must be a party political aspect, but it is not a party political aspect for or against. Perhaps he will deal with the specific point that I put to the hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste). The Government might seek to abolish the wages councils, and the trade unions might campaign against that. It might not be specifically said that people should not vote Tory, but it might be attacked as an unjust Tory measure. Is it not at least arguable that that now falls within paragraph (f)?

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Clearly it does not, as long as the trade unionists avoid linking that to an invitation to vote or not to vote for a political party. Paragraph (f) is clear on that point. There must be a specific attempt to persuade a person to vote or not to vote for a political party or candidate.

Mr. Blair: rose——

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I cannot go on giving way to the hon. Gentleman. I am afraid that that debate will have to take place outside the Chamber. His definition is subjective. It is clear that the circumstances to which he referred do not fall within that paragraph.
The hon. Gentleman also asked whether it was right for a trade union to be able to campaign against Government policy. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Minister would agree with me about this. Of course it is right that trade unions should be able to campaign against Government policy. That is where the right hon. And learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) and the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) have entirely misunderstood the meaning of the clause, or they have understood it and chosen not to say so in the debate.

Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman concedes that the trade union movement should have the right to campaign against Government policy. Does he accept that a trade union should have the right to campaign against Government policy using the union's general funds?

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: That is what I hope I have just said. Of course that is legitimate in so far as it affects the union's membership. That is what it is allowed to do by the Bill. However, it cannot use the funds as a political weapon to take party political sides in an election contest. It is right that the unions should be prohibited from doing that.
Therefore, the ability of a trade union to campaign against Government policy is a matter that we have been debating. The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East suggested that one of the results of the Bill was that if the British Telecom unions disagreed with the privatisation of that firm, they would be prohibited from fighting against it by producing pamphlets and from properly protecting the jobs of the union members. Under paragraph (f), which concerns documentation, that case does not arise. Those people are perfectly entitled to put forward the arguments for or against any item of Government policy as long as it has nothing to do with the election of the Government or any candidate who belongs to that party.

Mr. Mikardo: I accept the hon. Gentleman's illustration of a privatisation measure. A measure might be brought forward in the final Session of a Parliament and the union concerned might say to the workers, "You must resist this measure brought forward by the Conservative Government at all costs." If someone goes to court after that, the counsel might state that the union said, "If there is a Conservative Government, this measure will be passed, so you should vote for another party if you do not want that measure." It is not what the hon. Gentleman or I interpret but what the courts interpret that is important.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to make a point abainst the Bill, but not that one. Provided that the pamphlet was aimed at the legitimate union business of protecting the jobs of the members, the union would be entitled to take that action, but it could not go beyond what I believe is a clear and acceptable line, and use the pamphlet as a weapon with which to launch a political campaign for the destruction of the Government in an election. I was dealing with the points that the hon. Member for Sedgefield made earlier.

Mr. John Smith: rose——

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I cannot continue giving way, but I might give way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman in a moment.
The hon. Member for Bow and Poplar made two other points in his speech. He referred to a union hiring a hall so that it could argue against the Government's line on privatisation and matters affecting the trade unions. He said that it would be prohibited by the Bill from renting the hall, and that it would be a political object under clause 15. I challenged the hon. Gentleman, and he could not respond.
The definition under clause 15 paragraph (e) is:
in connection with any conference or meeting held by or on behalf of a political party or any other meeting at which business of a political party is transacted.
If the union combined the meeting with a party political meeting of the Labour party, that would be prohibited. I believe that it would be entirely wrong for the union to do that. A trade union is supposed to represent all its members' interests irrespective of its own political views. That is why Opposition Members and Conservative Members differ.

Mr. John Smith: As the hon. Gentleman is giving assurances about how harmless this legislation will be for trade unions, will he give some guidance as to what it is supposed to achieve? What mischief is it supposed to deal with? What campaign by trade unions would justify this legislation?

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: A trade union campaign aimed deliberately at this Government, or, in future years, conceivably at a Government of which the right hon. and learned Member was a member. That is unlikely, but it is not entirely impossible. Were that the case, it would be wrong for the trade union movement to get politically involved in that campaign and to use its general funds—voted for other purposes — for the purely political purpose of destroying that Government. That is the evil we aim to avoid.
It is precisely that evil which the amendment of the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar seeks to bring into being. The hon. Gentleman suggested that under this legislation there could be some difficulty in the courts as to what might or might not be a political objective, but that is nothing to the confusion that will be caused by new clause 4. Almost anything might be included in the wide definition of what the general fund could be used for for purely political purposes. That is the difference between Opposition Members and Conservative Members.
We believe that the trade unions have an important role to play, but that it is to look after the rights and interests of their members in relation to their own jobs. Opposition Members see the trade unions as an additional functional part of the Labour party. They wholly ignore the vast numbers of trade union members who do not support that party and who wish to support other parties. Every trade union measure put before the House by the Government is viewed by the Opposition only in terms of how it will affect the Labour party, not how it will affect the rights of the members of the unions concerned.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: I am interested in what Conservative Members have been saying, but I keep asking whether this legislation will lead to good industrial relations on the shop floor. As someone with direct experience of industrial relations I find that the answer that constantly emerges is, "No, it certainly will not."
My hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) is right to talk of lawyers becoming involved. I appreciate the difficulties that can arise when lawyers interpret legislation. However, most lawyers whom I know have some knowledge of industrial relations law and, therefore, are entitled to give a legal definition and advice.
The problem with industrial relations legislation is that every odd bod involved is only too willing to interpret each of piece of legislation. For example, I used to be a NUPE official representing cleaners. As a result of cuts in Government expenditure, the Highland, regional council decided to reduce cleaners' hours simply to be loyal to the then Government. That was a joke, because although the members of that council called themselves independent, they were really Tories, even though they claimed to be loyal to a Labour Government. It is true that a Labour Government at that time made the cuts, but they are not like the cuts that are being made now. At least the last Labour Government restored the cuts, whereas it is the philosophy of this Government to cut local government expenditure irrespective of need.
7.15 pm
Some of the people I represented, who worked 17 hours as part-time cleaners, had their hours cut to nine. In many cases, widows and women forced to maintain a family had their hours halved. They went on strike, and my job was

to report to my headquarters and recommend that the strike should be made official. The union supported me, and distributed literature in support of those members.
The personnel officer of the Highlands regional council said, even though legislation of this kind did not exist, that it was a political strike. He tried to argue that the strike had nothing to do with people fighting for their livelihoods. Under this Bill, that person would be able to say that it was a political strike, and the union and the cleaners would be taken to court. Surely, that is not what we want in industrial relations.
Those cleaners' hours were cut as a consequence of a political decision by the regional council, and in a sense the reaction of the cleaners was political. Therefore, anyone with this legislation to hand could say, "This is a political strike." In this day and age, I know of very few strikes in which there is not some political involvement. Even in private industry, Government finance is usually involved. Therefore, someone could go to court and say, "This is a political dispute."
The Upper Clyde Shipbuilders' dispute, in which I was involved, was a political action. All the unions represented in those shipyards lobbied Parliament and distributed leaflets and newsletters, all of which were aimed at the Government. They sought support from the Opposition, because they knew that a political decision would keep those shipyards open.
In the steel industry, coal mining, shipbuilding and the building industry, there is a political input——

Mr. Richard Holt: rose——

Mr. Martin: I shall not give way because many hon. Members wish to speak and the Minister wishes to reply.
It will be difficult for any trade union to distribute literature without fearing that it will be taken to court for doing so.
Only a few weeks ago—every other hon. Member probably had a similar experience—various workers in my constituency approached me just before the Budget, which always has implications for various industries. The tobacco industry is located in my constituency, and the tobacco workers' union rightly approached me and expressed worry about what the Chancellor might do. That union would be perfectly entitled to distribute literature before the Budget asking its members and families to approach their Members of Parliament, and even to write to Ministers, about it. No hon. Member would argue that that was not political literature. It is. It is directed at politicians, but that union would be entitled to get involved.
A union should be entitled to have a political fund. Even if the white collar unions do not pay a contribution to the Labour party, they should be allowed a political fund. Then, when literature such as I have described is distributed by those unions, there can be no dubiety as to the purposes for which the money is spent.
Conservative Members have spoken of companies publishing their accounts annually. If they knew more about the trade union movement, they would know that every trade union affiliated to the TUC publishes its accounts annually, and every union member is entitled to examine those accounts and, if need be, to demand an audit.

Mr. Bill Walker: rose——

Mr. Martin: I shall not give way. The hon. Member has not been in the Chamber throughout the debate, and now he is seeking to interrupt Opposition speakers.
The Minister told us in Committee that even if unions do not have a political levy — even if the members decide that they do not want to be affiliated to the Labour party—they can affiliate to political organisations. That makes nonsense of the Bill. When I asked the Minister whether it would be all right for any union to affiliate to the campaign for a Scottish Assembly, he said yes. That is an honourable organisation and I have no complaint about it, but how can it be said that it is non-political?
I can think of umpteen organisations to which my union is affiliated. Many unions are affiliated to organisations abroad, such as the campaign for hospitals in Vietnam. It could be argued that such campaigns are political. The Minister is telling us that it is all right for unions to affiliate to such bodies but that they must not distribute literature which in some way criticises the Government. That makes nonsense of the whole legislation.

Mr. Winnick: It is interesting to note that the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) is not present. I understand that that is because it is considered somewhat indelicate for him to be present at such proceedings. The same point applied apparently in Committee. It is disgraceful that the chairman of the party in office should be involved in a Department which is introducing legislation affecting the finances of the main Opposition party. I can well imagine what would happen if the reverse were the case and if a Labour Government had a Minister in office who was the chairman——

Mr. Gale: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Winnick: In a moment. If a Labour Government had a Minister who was the chairman of the party and he was introducing legislation affecting company donations to the Tory party, I wonder what Conservative Members would say.

Mr. Gale: I have asked this question once this afternoon and I ask it again. Can the hon. Member explain why the Labour party believes that the contributions are to be made or likely to be made only to the Labour party?

Mr. Winnick: I do not know what relevance that intervention has to our debate.

Mr. Gale: The hon. Gentleman has just implied that the chairman of the Conservative party, exercising his office as a Minister, has control over another party's funds. That is not the case. Trade union donations are not only to the Labour party—nor should they be.

Mr. Winnick: The hon. Gentleman is being so naive that it must be deliberate. We all know that the purpose of the legislation is to try to cripple the Labour party's funds. If the hon. Gentleman does not understand that, he must be extremely naive.
The Under-Secretary of State is now present and will, I presume, reply to the debate. I wonder to what extent he is an authority on trade union matters. I read the profile on him in the House Magazine. There was a great deal about his early life and about his going to Annabel's and taking £50 from the barman if he was short of funds. There did not seem to be anything about activities before he came to the House which had any possible bearing on industrial relations or trade union matters—unless the barman at Annabel's is somehow involved in industrial relations.
It is a fact — I do not think that even the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) would wish to deny it — that no restrictions on companies are being introduced in the Bill. As my hon. Friends have rightly said, the position is extremely unequal and unfair. Shareholders have no say whatever in whether a donation is to be made. [Interruption.] Conservative Members may mutter but the facts are perfectly clear. Companies make donations—inevitably they are either to the Tory party or to the front organisations connected with it—and they do so without any consultation with shareholders. Moreover, no shareholder is in a position to say, as a trade unionist can, "I wish to contract out." No shareholder has that right. [Interruption.] I repeat that no shareholder has that right. He can sell his shares, but if he wishes to retain his shares for good, sound commercial reasons and does not wish in any way to be involved in a donation to the Conservative party, he is not in a position to contract out. If Conservative Members believe that shareholders should be in a position to contract out, obviously they should have tabled an amendment which we could be debating today. No such amendment has been tabled.

Mr. Stefan Terlezki: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a shareholder has the right to call an extraordinary general meeting if he or she wishes, and that at an annual general meeting the shareholders have the right to question the validity of any donation made by the company?

Mr. Winnick: Would the hon. Gentleman be quite content if the same rule applied to the trade union movement; in other words, if there were no political fund, and if donations were made from the general fund but with the sort of caution or reservation that the hon. Gentleman says exists in the commercial field? If the hon. Gentleman believes that what is happening in the company world is perfectly all right, all we ask is that the same should apply in the trade union world, but I have seen no such suggestions or proposals by way of an amendment or new clause from the Conservative Benches. I am grateful to Conservative Members for strengthening our case and the point that we are trying to establish—that the present law is unfair and unequal.
It is wrong that trade unions should be subject to so many restrictions which at the moment—I say "at the moment" because obviously the position is likely to change in the event of a Labour Government — companies do not have applied to them. That is what is wrong. If there were to be any justification at all for legislation, it is precisely to put that position right. What is happening at the moment—

Mr. Richard Tracey: rose——

Mr. Winnick: I shall give way in a moment.

Mr. Ashton: Do not give way. [Interruption.]

Mr. Winnick: I have been advised not to give way, simply because of the shortage of time, and not because of the strength of argument of Conservative Members, but the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) is so keen and so anxious to intervene that I am sure that even my hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench will forgive me if I give way to him.

Mr. Tracey: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. A few minutes ago one of his hon. Friends told us very clearly that a limited company called the


League Against Cruel Sports recently had some donations to the Labour party ruled illegal by the courts. The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) is telling us that the law does not ban such contributions. How does he square those points?

Mr. Winnick: I have not heard of any contributions made by companies to the Tory party or its front organisations being declared unlawful in any way. It is interesting that the only illustration that the hon. Gentleman can give relates to a charity that wanted to donate to the Labour party, and whose action was found to be unlawful.
It is clear that if the new clause is not accepted, a union without a political fund will have great difficulty in indulging in campaigns, because they are likely to be considered unlawful. There are many matters about which unions may wish to campaign, including privatisation and Government cuts in public spending. Unions may wish to organise advertising and protest rallies.
7.30 pm
Conservative Members, some of them lawyers, have said that such action would not be unlawful. However, I submit that some of the comments made by Conservative Members and the intervention by the Minister, who spoke about the NALGO campaign, demonstrate that a number of campaigns would be considered unlawful. For example, a Government may introduce in the final Session of a Parliament a number of privatisation measures. The unions involved might consider them wrong and against their members' interests. If those unions campaigned against the proposals and invited Labour Members to help them, it is suggested that it would be easy for a union with no political fund to justify expenditure from a general fund on such action? Would it not be relatively easy for the Freedom Association or another such group to ensure that a member took his union to court? Such pitfalls and legal minefields cause deep anxiety to Labour Members. That is why the new clause was tabled.
If the new clause is not accepted, there are bound to be a number of court cases involving trade unions that do not have a political fund. Lawyers will be kept busy interpreting the Act and the unions will find themselves in court on numerous occasions.
We were told at the last election that the advent of a Labour Government would bring about almost an east European state in this country. It is interesting to note that this Government, having been re-elected with a larger majority, are constantly eroding civil liberties. In a host of ways—with the trade unions at GCHQ and through the abolition of the county councils, which, no doubt coincidentally I am sure, are Labour-controlled — the Government are taking measures and decisions that undermine the freedom of our fellow citizens.
The Bill is yet another illustration of the way in which freedom is being undermined by a Government who are almost corrupted by power. Conservative Members may feel complacent with their majority, but I have seen Governments with large majorities lose them at a subsequent general election. If the Government continue to abuse their power, and do all that they can to undermine their opponents and to cripple the finances of the main

Opposition party, they may find that on their ultimate day of judgment—the next general election—they will be effectively punished for that abuse of power.

Mr. Ashton: The one question that we hope will be answered in this debate is, what are the Government scared of? Why are they so frightened of the current balance of power?
The Government have the backing of about 85 per cent. of Fleet street and about £20 million of funds. Compare that with the resources available to trade unions and the money that the Labour party receives to fight elections. The Government's proposal is the action of a mean and petty-minded Administration with too much power and virtual moral corruption. They cannot bear to leave the situation as it is.
Parliament consists of a series of lobby groups. The place is run around pressure groups, and trade unions are but one such group. For all its faults, the system tends to work. Many Conservative Members represent pressure groups. Let us not kid ourselves that pressure groups do not give them funds for their campaigns or give money to Tory party headquarters.
All of us are susceptible to the lobbying that takes place just before the Budget. We are invited to lush lunches so that the banks or building societies can try to brainwash us. I do not go to such lunches, but some people think that hon. Members are like sheep who will do as they are asked in return for a three-course lunch.
The lobbying, persuading process goes on all the time. The Bill mentions action that
seeks to persuade any person to vote or … not to vote for a political party or candidate.
Why do not the Government take action on the lobbying of hon. Members? Why do not we have a register of lobbyists? We have read lately the saga of Mark Thatcher seeking to persuade people that Cementation should be given a contract. Immediately, the gag was put on everyone. No one dared say a word. The newspapers were criticised for trying to reveal what that persuasion was all about. If a trade union tries to do the same thing that Mark Thatcher did, it will be hauled before the courts. The wording of the Bill is so loose that any lawyer or judge could read into it anything that he chooses.
Every trade union now has its own magazine. Probably about 10 million copies are printed every month. Most simply give lists of long-serving members or explain what has been happening at various branches. But some launch campaigns. My union had a campaign about British Aerospace. It put tremendous pressure on its members and advised them to lobby Conservative Members who have aerospace interests in their constituencies. Because of that, many Conservative Members raised matters in the Chamber. Perhaps the Government were happy to accept that sort of attempt at persuasion, but if the trade union magazine had advised union members to lobby Conservative Members against the Trade Union Bill and the union paid for the magazine out of its general fund, it would be hauled up before the courts and would probably be fined.
It seems that our side of democracy must constantly be curtailed. Any amount of mailbag bumf may be sent to hon. Members from the friends of the Conservative party. We all receive mail from lobbyists. Every week in The House Magazine there is lobbying material from the NFU,


which will be arguing strongly against what the Government announced today, the Police Federation, which sends us its magazine, and various other lobbyists.
I sat on the Select Committee on Members' Interests. We considered the lobbying of Parliament and wanted to have a register of lobbyists, but it was impossible to define who was a lobbyist. Is a man who takes you for a drink in the House to bend your ear a lobbyist? Should a free trip abroad be included in a register? Should the register include campaign funds from Rank, Hovis or the brewers, who gave £50,000 to the Conservative party to try to persuade the Government not to increase the price of beer in the Budget? They suggested cutting the price of a bottle of wine by 18p and they got their way. Perhaps the fish and chip manufacturers did not lobby as hard or pay as much cash and perhaps that was why a tax was put on takeaway fish and chips.
Lobbying takes place all the time and it is naive for anybody to think that it does not. Yet the tight controls are put only on trade unions. The gag is being put on. We have lived with such actions all our lives. The press, television and radio constantly denigrate trade unionists and make them out to be enemies of the people. We see the same sort of propaganda barrage that was used by Goebbels and is now used by South Africans against black people.
The hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Miller) laughs. Many people have made fun of trade unions, but they go on for ever. The hon. Gentleman may laugh as much as he likes, but he will not defeat trade unionism in this country.
The Bill is an attempt to gag trade unions and put them in court. Every time they protest, campaign, print leaflets, march down the street or lobby Members of Parliament, a Tory Member will run to the courts, backed by the Freedom Association, saying, "This is a political activity which is breaking the law." The judges will warn the unions not to break the law and say that if they continue with the activity, it will represent a contempt of court. We shall have NGA-type disputes with Mr. Eddie Shah all over again, with £500,000 fines and the rest.
The Bill is designed to provoke more contempts of court, with heavier fines on trade unions until they are bankrupt. In other words, it is a denial of free speech. Trade unions will be denied the right to print leaflets, campaign and advertise. It is legislation against any concept that we in Britain have known.

Sir Raymond Gower: Two main attacks on the clause were made by Opposition Members. The first claim was that something similar did not apply to company law. I should have thought that a distinction could be drawn between a person who buys shares in a company and a person who works for a company and is therefore unable to withdraw from that company in the way that a person can who has bought shares in it and wishes to dispose of them. [Interruption.] There is no obligation on anybody to purchase shares in any company, whether or not he objects to the activities of that company.

Mr. Mikardo: The hon. Gentleman is not answering my point. A man may have his pension money invested in a pension hind. Any idea that he can control where that investment goes is a fairy tale; 99 out of 100 people do not even know where their pension fund money is invested. People, unwittingly, are therefore supporting the Tories, whether they like it or not.

Sir Raymond Gower: The trustees of pension funds are subject to strong pressures.

Mr. Mikardo: I wish they were.

Sir Raymond Gower: I do not regard the references of Opposition Members to company law as an objection to the clause. Indeed, I would not object to a similar provision having an application to company law. Either way, that does not affect the usefulness of a provision such as this.
Exaggerated fears have been expressed about the ability of a union to exert itself effectively in the interests of its members' wages, conditions and the rest. The second objection of the Opposition, in other words, is that the provision would have an adverse effect on the proper objectives and activities of any efficient trade union. We can envisage circumstances in which a thinly disguised document dealing with wages and conditions of employment would really be a polemic against the Government of the day, and hence a political document. The clause does not destroy the right of a trade union to exert itself in the proper functions of a trade union on behalf of the conditions and earnings of its members.

Mr. David Penhaligon: I have enjoyed this more than many debates in the House. I have listened to Conservative Members arguing in favour of the Bill, fundamentally on the premise that the system that now exists means that many members of trade unions who do not support the Labour party in effect provide funds for that party and its campaigns. That, they say, should be stopped. Labour Members have argued that much the same can be said of the large donations from big business to the Conservative party.
We on the Liberal Bench take the view that both of those arguments are right, that what the Socialists say about Conservative fund-raising is true and that what the Tories say about Labour fund-raising is equally true. However, almost everything else that Conservative and Labour Members say on the subject is nonsense.
We in Britain have a corporate system of politics. We have the two big power masters of politics — the company owners and company unions — with their poodles here arguing vehemently, as they have today, to prop up the present system. I cannot demonstrate better how ludicrous the system is than by referring to the position in my constituency, where the dominant union, the Transport and General Workers Union, provides a substantial sum of money to the Labour party each year, and the company for whom many of the members of that union work, English China Clays Limited, gives a substantial sum to the Conservative party each year.
There are no signs of either side supporting either party in the ballot box when the great day comes; if they did, I should no longer be in the House. However, both feel that they must be part of this crazy business of each supporting its side in the battle between those who wish to see more or less state control, as the case may be.
I suspect that the Minister knows what is required but cannot get the solution past his master. What is needed is for Britain to face up to the way in which the political parties in general are financed. If the United States can face up to that problem, I do not see why we cannot do likewise and pass the necessary legislation.

Mr. Ashton: Is it not a fact that the alliance went to the electricians' union to see whether it would give it some cash? If the alliance had been offered cash, would it have taken it?

Mr. Penhaligon: I have not said that either side is immoral in receiving cash. I am simply referring to the corporate nature of the system under which we operate. For example, at the last election the post office workers ran a brilliant campaign against the desire of the Tories to lop off British Telecom. Their leaflets were well prepared and their arguments well adduced, and I concurred with them. If the sole desire of the POEU had been to defeat that proposal by the Conservatives, it should have given some financial assistance to other political parties that agreed with its aim. It chose not to do so simply because of the corporate nature of British politics.
We must face up to this dilemma. I believe that most hon. Members, if they are not talking to the bosses of their parties, recognise that if parties on both sides of the House were less dependent on their political paymasters, we should have a better system in Parliament and Government. The Government are, therefore, dodging the main issue, which is the financing of the political parties in Britain. On the whole, politics in this country will not improve by being even worse financed than it is at present, which I fear will be the result of what the Government propose.

Mr. Winnick: Is it not a fact that the Liberal party, when in a different electoral position, received substantial contributions from companies and industry in much the same way as the Tory party receives contributions now, and that there were no complaints from Liberals at the time? Is it not also a fact that SDP Members, when in the Labour party, made no complaint about the link between the trade union movement and the Labour party?

Mr. Penhaligon: I too can read the history books. I was born in 1944 and I do not recall the Liberal party ever receiving money from anyone. My contribution to the debate, foolish though it may seem, is designed to raise the level of debate and to consider the general interests of the great society we seek to represent.
I put to the House with great vigour and total conviction my belief that the domination of our politics by corporate donations to the two sides works against the interests of much of British politics and that the only way out of the difficulty is some form of state financing of political parties, which the Conservatives accepted when they were in opposition.

Mr. Holt: If the hon. Gentleman has so much to contribute to the debate why did he not attend even one meeting of the Standing Committee to make a contribution on the subject?

Mr. Penhaligon: I attended quite a few of the meetings, although I confess that I spent a fair proportion of the latter period of the Committee trying to alter the Chesterfield result—with some effect, as it turned out. One of the reasons why the alliance does so much better at by-elections is that it is the only time when we are on a par financially with the other two parties, which must frighten both of them out of their wits. If only the same were true at general elections.

Mr. Alan Clark: This part of the Bill simply updates the 1913 Act. The Government have been at pains to avoid

departing from the principles of that Act. We have merely brought them up to date in the belief that no reasonable person could object to their being applied to new generations of trade union members.
The new clause, whether amended or not, is unnecessary, because the new definition of political objects makes it clear that it is concerned with party political matters and not with industrial or other more general political matters. The new clause would allow a whole range of party political expenditure to be met from general funds on the ground that it was connected with matters directly affecting terms and conditions or security of employment. That would be to move right outside the provisions of the 1913 Act and would thus be unacceptable.
For motives of their own, doubtless connected with an incipient propaganda campaign to frighten trade union members into voting for the continuation of the political fund, the Opposition have suggested that trade union expenditure relating to any kind of political matter will be caught by the new definition and that campaigns about job losses, employment legislation and the like will all have to be financed from political funds.
The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) made two main points. He said that the purpose of this part of the Bill was to upset the relationship between the Labour party and the trade union movement. I shall return to that later. To give him credit, he stayed away from the arguments advanced by many Labour Members to the effect that the Bill would inhibit perfectly ordinary non-party political campaigning. He alleged, however, that clause 15 contained an innovation with regard to voting against a political party, but plainly an injunction which says, "If you do not vote Conservative your job will be at risk, so watch out," is party political and would have been covered by the definition in the 1913 Act.
The hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) cited a series of situations which he claimed would be caught by the new provisions in clause 15, but I believe that every one of them would in fact be perfectly legitimate. He said that the clause would limit the right to campaign publicly about wages and conditions, but it plainly would not. He said that an advertisement to the effect that an employer was reneging on an agreement would be caught, whereas plainly it would not be caught. He said that hiring Central Hall to put the case relating to industrial conditions or the like would be caught by the provisions, but it would not be caught.

Mr. Mikardo: If a union believes that some of its members will lose their jobs as a result of Government action and hires Central Hall for the speakers on the platform to explain why they believe that the union members will be disadvantaged, all it needs is for one bod in the middle of the hall to shout out, "Brothers, all you have to do is vote Labour and get the Government out," and there will be a court action the next week.

Mr. Clark: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but he is simply not right. The proposed new subsection (3)(e) to the 1913 Act clearly refers to
any conference held by or on behalf of a political party or any other meeting at which business of a political party is transacted".
If Central Hall is hired for such a meeting, that will be caught, but if is hired by the union merely to publicise its


terms and conditions or whatever, that will not be caught. The same applies to all the examples that the hon. Gentleman cited. His final example was that of a union mounting a campaign to stop a Ministry of Defence contract being placed abroad. That is perfectly legitimate and there is no intention or provision in this part of the Bill to deal with it.
The hon. Member for Sedgfield (Mr. Blair), like his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East, claimed that the Bill dealt with the funding of the Labour party. In the one example that he gave, he queried the legitimacy of a campaign against the abolition of wages councils. It may be helpful to enlarge on exactly what the Opposition mean by a campaign. There are only two elements in a campaign. The first consists of meetings. The second is publicity — media material, propaganda, advertisements, and so on. Both are clearly covered in the new definition. A meeting held by or on behalf of a political party must be paid for out of the political fund. The production, distribution and so on of material designed to persuade people to vote for or against a political party must also be paid for out of the political fund. A campaign that does not include those two elements, however—a perfectly legitimate campaign to change pay and conditions and contracts and so forth—can legitimately be met out of the general fund.

Mr. Blair: If in a campaign against Government policy the union does not expressly ask members not to vote for that party, but the policy concerned is stigmatised, for example, as Tory party policy, is there not a danger that the union could be said by implication to be asking people not to vote Tory?

Mr. Clark: That is perfectly true. There may be high points or low points in a campaign, depending on the aspect from which they are regarded, when the advertisement, meeting, agitation or whatever is overtly party political. In those circumstances, it would not be legitimate for them to be paid for other than out of the political fund. That is all. The NALGO advertisement with which the Opposition made such great play was part of a campaign which may in part have been legitimate, but to the extent that it included an advertisement with a facsimile ballot paper and urged members to use their votes it was plainly party political and would thus be covered by clause 15.
The hon. Member for Dunfermiline, East (Mr. Brown) used a very revealing phrase when he referred to a union losing its fund as a result of Government legislation. If a union loses its political fund it will be the result not of Government legislation but of the union's own membership rejecting the concept. The sooner that he accepts that and accepts the legitimacy of what we are doing, the more enlightened he will become.
8 pm
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) said that we were impeding unions that were entitled to have a political fund. The only entitlement to a political fund after the Bill will be that arising from the endorsement of a union's members. The hon. Gentleman gave the example of a campaign for the Scottish Assembly being inhibited by the Bill. It certainly would not. That would be a perfectly legitimate campaign, not a party political one. As to entitlement, the members of his union will determine that entitlement, not the Government.
The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) did not really speak to the clause at all. He made some interesting digressions about the House of Commons being an assembly of lobbyists, the majority of whom were perpetually taking three-course lunches. He disclaimed falling into that category, and I am glad to join him. Whether we are in a minority, I rather doubt. That seemed to me to be the sum total of his contribution.
I do not share the low opinion of the majority of Conservative Members of the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), despite the personal remarks that he sometimes makes about me. However, he, too, spent most of his time arguing about the concept of campaigning. He must understand that campaigning will not be affected by the Bill. Only party political campaigning will be affected, and that is no different from the provisions of the 1913 Act.
The one consistent theme that has pervaded the arguments of Labour Members is the contention that the Bill is an attack on the finances of the Labour party and an attempt to sever the link between the Labour party and the trade union movement. I do not deny the validity—or even the desirability — of that historic and long-established link between the trade union movement and the Labour party, the recognition of which is implicit in the 1913 Act. I hope that I have enough sense of history to recognise that those have been of demonstrable and permanent value to our country.
However, time has moved on and it is at least questionable whether the Labour party or the trade union leadership actively serve the interests of individual trade union members as those individual members may wish. There is abundant testimony to that not only in the opinion polls but in the presence of so many Conservative Members in the House following the last election. Therefore, is it not at the very least reasonable to offer those members the chance of confirming the arrangements for a political fund which was given to their forefathers in the 1913 Act over 70 years ago to decide whether a portion of their subscription shall go into a fund with party political objectives? That is all we are doing. After a long interval, and as was clearly the intention of the authors of the original Act, we are only giving them an opportunity to confirm or reject the existence of the fund. No amount of verbiage or dissimulation by Labour Members can conceal that. Far from concealing it, it reveals that many of them are deeply apprehensive that the result of the periodic ballots will be that the majority of the members vote against the existence of a political fund. If they are not going to, hon. Members have nothing to worry about. If they do reject it, surely no hon. Member would wish to subsist on levies for which the majority have not given their consent.
In essence, the new clause is a cover for allowing political objectives to be paid for out of the general fund —by definition, in circumstances following a rejection by a majority of the membership of the political fund—and we find it completely unacceptable.

Mr. Evans: The House of Commons has now been considering the Bill for almost five months. Tonight we have arrived at the heart of the Bill — the general question of the rights of trade unions to defend themselves and to defend and promote their members' interests in whatever way is required, whether it be industrially or politically.
In the past five years, with two Acts of Parliament, the Government have considerably circumscribed the right of trade unions to defend themselves industrially. In part III we are seeing the Tory party's determination to limit a trade union's ability politically to defend itself and its members.
We have seen in Committee that there are two prongs to that attack. The first prong is to demand periodic ballots to maintain political funds. What is the origin of the demand that there should be ballots of members of trade unions which have political funds within a short of space of time of the Act being passed and then at 10-year intervals? The attack has come from the Tory party, the Liberal party, and, as we have seen, from the Social Democratic party. A leading article in The Times today puts in a nutshell the campaign that has been carried on by those parties against political funds. It said:
Individuals who object to having their money taken for the coffers of parties they oppose have always had at least the right to opt publicly out of the process. But in practice it has often taken considerable moral fortitude to do so, and it has meant risking the hostility of workmates and even effective exclusion from the union's counsels.
That sentiment is undoubtedly shared by large sectors of the Tory party in the House and in the country. That is a pack of lies. There is not a shred of factual evidence to justify any of those three comments. No moral fortitude is required by any individual to contract out of the political levy. Nor is there any hostility by anyone's workmates to anyone who contracts out. To exclude anyone from the union's counsels for not paying the political levy would be illegal. Everyone who has studied this aspect of trade union law knows that.
Tories are constantly boasting, as the Minister has just done, about the percentage of trade unionists who vote Tory——

Mr. Mikardo: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise to my hon. Friend for interupting him. I am trying hard to follow what he is saying, but I am inhibited from so doing by the buzz of conversation from many Tory Members who are technically not in the House. Would it be possible, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to persuade them to move a few yards southwards to the other side of the door?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has a valid point and I hope that notice will be taken of it.

Mr. Evans: The Tory party is constantly boasting about the percentage of trade union members whom, it alleges, vote for it. In the next breath it is ranting about trade unionists being too terrified to opt out of the political levy. Of course, those two points do not tally. In this day and age no one of whom I am aware in the trade union movement is in the least alarmed about contracting out of the political levy if he so desires. The reason for the constant repetition of that canard is to mask the obvious. There is no complaint from trade unionists who pay the political levy about the method by which the political levy is deducted. There is no complaint about the existence of a political fund from contracted-out members of a union, even in those unions where fewer than 50 per cent. pay the political levy, despite the Tory campaign.
The second prong of the Tory attack, to limit trade unions' ability to defend their membership, or to promote

their interests, is the vast widening in clause 15 of the definition of political objectives. It is now widely accepted that clause 15 considerably re-draws the definition of political objectives, notwithstanding the fact that the Under-Secretary in his opening remarks said that all that was being done was to update the 1913 Act, a point that his hon. Friend the Minister of State, who once again was not present during the debate, made on Second Reading. Indeed, the Under-Secretary admitted in Committee that the NALGO campaign would have been the first to be caught by the new definition, and that is what he admitted tonight, whereas the NALGO campaign was not affected by the previous definition, of which the Minister is well aware. That is a major change in the widening of the definition of political objectives. NALGO would be informed that any campaign of that nature to defend its members against Government actions would have to be paid for from a political fund. NALGO has no political fund, and therefore—this is where one reaches what the Tory party seeks to obtain — there would be no campaign of that nature against the Tory party.
Many other unions in the public sector do not have political funds. The National Union of Teachers, the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Woman Teachers, the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education and virtually all the Civil Service unions do not have political funds. Many of those unions have been at the forefront in seeking to defend their members against the Tory party's attacks on their jobs and their terms and conditions in the past two to three years. It should be appreciated by all Conservative Members that, of the 462 organisations listed as trade unions by the certification officer at 31 December 1982, only 62 had political funds. Once the Bill goes on to the statute book, almost every union will need a political fund if it is to defend itself against attack from the Tory Government. It will be a question not of affiliating to the Labour party, but of acquiring a political fund to defend the union's members. Any question of affiliation to the Labour party is very much a secondary issue in the major argument that the trade union movement will have to face up to in the next two to three years. Indeed, the whole range of activity carried on by trade unions in the past out of the general fund will have to come out of the political fund in many instances in future because of the way in which the new subsection (3)(f) of the 1913 Act has been rewritten in clause 15.
It is important to look at the Opposition's objection to the rewriting of section 3 of the 1913 Act, as laid out in clause 15. The area that is causing so much concern is embodied in paragraph (f). It should be appreciated that the Opposition spent a considerable amount of time in Committee seeking to persuade the Government to drop the words in line 10,
or, as the case may be, not to vote",
so that it would have read
seeks to persuade any person to vote for a political party or candidate.
That at least would have been a clear definition of what would be involved in political activity. The inclusion of the words
or, as the case may be, not to vote
has aroused grave suspicions at every level in the Labour movement about the impact and effect of the Bill. The new clause seeks to qualify the Government's intention. It seeks to lay down that trade unions, provided that they are


putting forward arguments that will seek to protect the terms and conditions and security of their members, will not then be charged with committing a political act.
8.15 pm
Another element involved in this area is that trade unions which have a political fund will be badly affected with regard to what expenditure can come out of the general and political funds. I submit that many things—for example the lobbying of Members of Parliament on privatisation methods, the lobbying of Parliament on the London Regional Transport Bill and the lobbying of Parliament on the royal ordnance factories—which have been paid for out of the unions' general funds in the past will have to be paid for out of their political funds in the future.
I am pleased, and I acknowledge this to the Under-Secretary, that amendment No. 40 has been tabled. I hope that this will mitigate some of the fears of the Opposition expressed in Committee on union activities in lobbying party conferences, and so on. I hope that amendment No. 40 will meet our objections, but we shall have to wait and see.
If more money has to be spent out of political funds by those unions that have political funds, it is self-evident that less money will be available for unions to affiliate to the Labour party. That is an additional element in the Government's attack which is aimed at weakening the major Opposition party. The 1913 Act was an acceptable compromise. Broadly, it equated political activity with every aspect of promoting the candidature of an individual or office. national or local, and it recognised the historic links between the unions and the Labour party. After 70 years, the Tories hope to smash that relationship. It is a blatant and obvious attack upon the funding of the Labour party. As my hon. Friends have said, any consequential legislation will have an impact upon companies. It is disgraceful that organisations such as the Campaign Against Building Industry Nationalisation— CABIN—which were operative during the 1979 general election, and spent hundreds of thousands of pounds campaigning against the Labour party's nationalisation policy in relation to the building industry, will be able to carry on in future. The Freedom Association, Aims of Industry and other Right-wing organisations will also be allowed to carry on their activities. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) said in opening the debate on new clause 4, there will be the scandal of a multinational oil corporation, whether it be American, German or French, being able to attack the Labour party to the utmost, and to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds in a campaign to attack it in a general election, yet the trade unions with members in that industry will be unable to seek to protect those members by urging them to vote for the Labour party.
My view—and at this stage it is my view only—is that the Labour party should learn the lessons demonstrated by the Tory party. We should abolish the political fund, and we should place trade unions in future on precisely the same footing as that of any other organisation in the country, by giving them the right to spend their money in the way that they and their members see fit.
The new clause, which has not been accepted, has laid bare the Government's strategy. We shall campaign on clause 15 throughout the country in the next two or three

months. Its purpose is to cripple the Labour movement, which will be clear after tonight. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the new clause.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 172, Noes 343.

Division No. 217]
[8.19pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Godman, Dr Norman


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Golding, John


Adley, Robert
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Anderson, Donald
Hardy, Peter


Ashton, Joe
Harman, Ms Harriet


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Barnett, Guy
Haynes, Frank


Barron, Kevin
Heffer, Eric S.


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Bell, Stuart
Home Robertson, John


Benn, Tony
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)


Bermingham, Gerald
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Bidwell, Sydney
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Blair, Anthony
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Boyes, Roland
Janner, Hon Greville


Bray, Dr Jeremy
John, Brynmor


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Lambie, David


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Lead bitter, Ted


Caborn, Richard
Leighton, Ronald


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Campbell, Ian
Litherland, Robert


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Canavan, Dennis
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Loyden, Edward


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
McCartney, Hugh


Clarke, Thomas
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Clay, Robert
McKelvey, William


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
McNamara, Kevin


Cohen, Harry
McTaggart, Robert


Coleman, Donald
McWilliam, John


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Madden, Max


Conlan, Bernard
Marek, Dr John


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Martin, Michael


Corbett, Robin
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Corbyn, Jeremy
Meacher, Michael


Cowans, Harry
Michie, William


Craigen, J. M.
Mikardo, Ian


Crowther, Stan
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Cunningham, Dr John
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Nellist, David


Deakins, Eric
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Dewar, Donald
O'Brien, William


Dobson, Frank
O'Neill, Martin


Dormand, Jack
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Douglas, Dick
Parry, Robert


Dubs, Alfred
Patchett, Terry


Duffy, A. E. P.
Pavitt, Laurie


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Pendry, Tom


Eadie, Alex
Pike, Peter


Eastham, Ken
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)
Prescott, John


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Radice, Giles


Fatchett, Derek
Randall, Stuart


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Redmond, M.


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Rees, Rt Hon M. ("Leeds S)


Flannery, Martin
Richardson, Ms Jo


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Foster, Derek
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Foulkes, George
Robertson, George


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


George, Bruce
Rogers, Allan


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)






Rowlands, Ted
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Ryman, John
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Sedgemore, Brian
Tinn, James


Sheerman, Barry
Torney, Tom


Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Wareing, Robert


Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)
Weetch, Ken


Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)
Welsh, Michael


Silkin, Rt Hon J.
White, James


Skinner, Dennis
Wigley, Dafydd


Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)
Winnick, David


Snape, Peter
Woodall, Alec


Spearing, Nigel
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)



Stott, Roger
Tellers for the Ayes:


Strang, Gavin
Mr. James Hamilton and Mr. Don Dixon


Straw, Jack



Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)





NOES


Adley, Robert
Colvin, Michael


Aitken, Jonathan
Conway, Derek


Alexander, Richard
Coombs, Simon


Alton, David
Cope, John


Amess, David
Cormack, Patrick


Ancram, Michael
Corrie, John


Ashby, David
Couchman, James


Ashdown, Paddy
Cranborne, Viscount


Aspinwall, Jack
Critchley, Julian


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Crouch, David


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Dickens, Geoffrey


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Dorrell, Stephen


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Baldry, Anthony
Dover, Den


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Batiste, Spencer
Dunn, Robert


Beith, A. J.
Durant, Tony


Bellingham, Henry
Dykes, Hugh


Bendall, Vivian
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Benyon, William
Eggar, Tim


Berry, Sir Anthony
Emery, Sir Peter


Bevan, David Gilroy
Evennett, David


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Fallon, Michael


Body, Richard
Farr, John


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Favell, Anthony


Bottomley, Peter
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Fletcher, Alexander


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Fookes, Miss Janet


Braine, Sir Bernard
Forman, Nigel


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Forth, Eric


Bright, Graham
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Brinton, Tim
Fox, Marcus


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Franks, Cecil


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Bruinvels, Peter
Freeman, Roger


Bryan, Sir Paul
Fry, Peter


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Gale, Roger


Buck, Sir Antony
Galley, Roy


Budgen, Nick
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Butcher, John
Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)


Butterfill, John
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Glyn, Dr Alan


Carttiss, Michael
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Cartwright, John
Goodlad, Alastair


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Gorst, John


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Gower, Sir Raymond


Chapman, Sydney
Grant, Sir Anthony


Chope, Christopher
Greenway, Harry


Churchill, W. S.
Gregory, Conal


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Grist, Ian


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Ground, Patrick


Clegg, Sir Walter
Gummer, John Selwyn


Cockeram, Eric
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)





Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Major, John


Hampson, Dr Keith
Malins, Humfrey


Hanley, Jeremy
Malone, Gerald


Hannam, John
Maples, John


Harris, David
Marland, Paul


Haselhurst, Alan
Marlow, Antony


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Mates, Michael


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Mather, Carol


Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)
Maude, Hon Francis


Hawksley, Warren
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Hayes, J.
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Hayhoe, Barney
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Hayward, Robert
Meadowcroft, Michael


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Mellor, David


Heddle, John
Merchant, Piers


Henderson, Barry
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Hickmet, Richard
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Hicks, Robert
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Hill, James
Miscampbell, Norman


Hind, Kenneth
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)


Hirst, Michael
Moate, Roger


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Montgomery, Fergus


Holt, Richard
Moore, John


Hooson, Tom
Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)


Hordern, Peter
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Howard, Michael
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Moynihan, Hon C.


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Mudd, David


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)
Murphy, Christopher


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Neale, Gerrard


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Neubert, Michael


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Newton, Tony


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Nicholls, Patrick


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Normanton, Tom


Hunter, Andrew
Norris, Steven


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Onslow, Cranley


Irving, Charles
Ottaway, Richard


Jackson, Robert
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Parris, Matthew


Jessel, Toby
Patten, John (Oxford)


Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Pawsey, James


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Penhaligon, David


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Pink, R. Bonner


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Pollock, Alexander


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Porter, Barry


Key, Robert
Powell, William (Corby)


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Powley, John


King, Rt Hon Tom
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Kirkwood, Archibald
Price, Sir David


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Proctor, K. Harvey


Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Knowles, Michael
Raffan, Keith


Knox, David
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Lamont, Norman
Rathbone, Tim


Lang, Ian
Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)


Lawler, Geoffrey
Renton, Tim


Lawrence, Ivan
Rhodes James, Robert


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Lee, John (Pendle)
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Roe, Mrs Marion


Lester, Jim
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Lightbown, David
Rost, Peter


Lilley, Peter
Rowe, Andrew


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Lord, Michael
Ryder, Richard


Lyell, Nicholas
Sackville, Hon Thomas


McCrindle, Robert
Sayeed, Jonathan


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Macfarlane, Neil
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


MacGregor, John
Shelton, William (Streatham)


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Maclean, David John
Shersby, Michael


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Silvester, Fred


McQuarrie, Albert
Sims, Roger


Madel, David
Skeet, T. H. H.






Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Viggers, Peter


Speed, Keith
Waddington, David


Speller, Tony
Wainwright, R.


Spencer, Derek
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Walden, George


Squire, Robin
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Stanbrook, Ivor
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Stanley, John
Wall, Sir Patrick


Steen, Anthony
Wallace, James


Stern, Michael
Waller, Gary


Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Walters, Dennis


Stevens, Martin (Fulham)
Ward, John


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)
Warren, Kenneth


Stokes, John
Watson, John


Stradling Thomas, J.
Watts, John


Taylor, Fit Hon John David
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Taylor, John (Solihull)
Wheeler, John


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Whitney, Raymond


Terlezki, Stefan
Wiggin, Jerry


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Wilkinson, John


Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
Winterton, Nicholas


Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)
Wolfson, Mark


Thornton, Malcolm
Wood, Timothy


Thurnham, Peter
Woodcock, Michael


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Yeo, Tim


Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Tracey, Richard



Trippier, David
Tellers for the Noes:


Trotter, Neville
Mr. Robert Boscawen and Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.


Twinn, Dr Ian



van Straubenzee, Sir W.

Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 5

CONTRACTING IN FOR MAKING POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS

'Notwithstanding the provisions of the Trade Union Act 1913, all members of a registered trade union shall be regarded as exempt for the purposes of payments made to the political fund of that trade union unless they have given written notice of their intention to contribute to the political fund.'. — [Mr. John Townend.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. John Townend: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take new clause 8—Political contributions—
For sections 5 and 6 of the Trade Union Act 1913 there shall be substituted:
(5) A member of a trade union may at any time give notice, that he wishes to contribute to the political fund of the union, and, on the adoption of a resolution of the union approving the furtherance of political objects as an object of the union, notice shall be given to the members of the union acquainting them of the procedures for contributing to the political fund of the union, and that an appropriate contribution form can be obtained by or on behalf of a member either by application or by post from the head office or any branch office of the union or the office of the Certification Officer.
Any such notice to members of the union shall be given in accordance with the rules of the union approved for the purpose by the Certification Officer, having regard in each case to the existing practice and to the character of the union.
(6) Effect shall be given to the wish of members to contribute to the political fund of a union by a separate levy of contributions to that fund from the members of the union who wish to contribute, and the rules shall provide that no moneys of the union other than the amount raised by such separate levy shall be carried to that fund.".'.

Mr. Townend: New clause 5 deals with a matter of principle—individual freedom of choice. I had always believed that that principle was close to the heart of the Tory party, and therefore I was saddened when I felt impelled to table this new clause. I am sure that many of my colleagues had hoped that the Government would have included a clause of this type in their draft Bill. It is especially surprising that the Government did not do so because, on numerous occasions during consideration of the Bill in Committee, my right hon. and hon. Friends made reference to the fact that the purpose of the Bill was to increase the rights of individual trade unionists rather than to reduce the rights and powers of trade unions.
New clause 5, as drafted, simply changes the present position whereby anyone who does not wish to pay the political levy must contract out and, if he does not, pays it automatically. The new clause provides that any one wishing to pay the political levy must contract in. We all know that in practice supporting and paying into the political levy means giving financial support to the Labour party. In a free society there is no reason why anyone should give financial support to a political party unless he has expressly indicated his desire to do so. The onus should not be on the individual who does not wish to make such a payment and who, to contract out, will inevitably give other people some sign of his political beliefs. I have as yet heard no argument that deals satisfactorily with that fundamental principle.
I shall consider first how the present system is working. The 1982 report of the Certification Officer showed that in the four largest unions over 90 per cent. of members were paying a political levy. In two of those unions—the Transport and General Workers Union and the National Union of Public Employees—no fewer than 98 per cent. of members were paying the levy. I am sure that no hon. Member on either side of the House believes that anything like that percentage supported the Labour party with their vote at election time.
It is clear, after taking into account support for the other parties—the Conservative and Liberal parties, the SDP alliance and the nationalists—that many hundreds of thousands or perhaps 1 million or 2 million trade unionists who do not vote for the Labour party at elections are paying the political levy that finances the Labour party. There are a number of reasons for that. Inertia is one reason. Many people are reluctant to take any action to do anything. Many trade unionists are ignorant of their rights, and I know that my right hon. Friend's agreement tries to deal with that aspect. Many trade unionists do not wish to make their political views known. Some are afraid of standing out in a crowd, of possible victimisation and, in extreme cases, intimidation. There is no doubt that in some factories considerable psychological pressure is put on people.

Mr. Evans: Where is the evidence?

Mr. Townend: The evidence is that 98 per cent of members of the Transport and General Workers Union pay the political levy.
The Government have decided that there is no need at this stage to legislate as I and some of my hon. Friends are requesting. The Government have come to an agreement with the Trades Union Congress to issue a statement of guidance to its members. That statement sets out the


procedures that should be followed to ensure that trade union members are aware of their rights to contract out and that no obstacles are put in their way.
My first reservation about that agreement is that the TUC has no power to force its member unions to obey the agreement. On a number of occasions recently, we have noted solemn and binding agreements. There is a code of conduct for picketing, which at present does not seem to be applied very much.
Even if the agreement works to the degree hoped by the Government, it does not deal with the principle I raised. Is it right for an individual to be railroaded into giving financial support to a political party without his express agreement? In addition, the agreement does not deal with the problem of inertia. I suggest that it will not deal either with the problem of psychological pressure.
The union member contracting out will reveal to his trade union officials and his fellow members that he at least does not support the Labour party. He can keep his political views to himself at election time because of the secret ballot at the polling booth, but, if he wishes to withdraw from paying a political levy to the Labour party, his political attitude becomes known to others. In many cases, that will, whatever the guidelines say, affect his chances of being elected to union office.
Many of my hon. Friends will be expecting the Secretary of State to spell out what he expects to achieve from his agreement with the TUC on the implementation of the statement of guidance. Will he fix a time limit within which the unions must deliver? What criteria will he use when deciding whether the unions have delivered? Will he be satisfied if, for example, the percentage of TGWU members paying the political levy falls from 98 per cent. to 70 per cent.?
I turn briefly to some of the pragmatic arguments that the Government have been putting to me and, I believe, a considerable number of my hon. Friends in the past few days. It would appear that the Government's principal argument for not bringing in contracting in was that it was not in the Conservative party manifesto. I suggest to the House that no Government should be deterred from doing what is right in principle merely because the action is not stated in the manifesto. Unlike the Opposition, the Tory party has never been a slave to its manifesto. There are many precedents. During the previous debate some Opposition Members mentioned Winston Churchill's stand. During the late 1940s or early 1950s when Winston Churchill was the leader of the Tory party, our manifesto contained a commitment to bring back contracting in. We did not do that when we subsequently were returned to power.
Another argument which has been advanced by a number of people and which will no doubt be put forward tonight is that contracting in would be unfair to the Labour party. It could be seen by the country as an attack upon the Labour party and would offend the centre ground of politics. I would strongly challenge that view. Are hon. Members saying that fair-minded people feel that it is right or necessary for the Labour party to be financed by the subscriptions of people who are not prepared to give it their votes? When it comes to the middle ground, I notice from the amendment paper that new clause 8, tabled by the alliance, is in principle the same as my new clause. I

suggest that the alliance could clearly be said to represent the middle ground in politics and therefore I trust that it will be joining us in the Lobby.
A third argument which has been used to persuade hon. Members not to vote for the new clause is that it will inevitably increase pressure for state funding of political parties. I cannot understand the thinking behind that argument. At the last election the alliance polled nearly as many votes as the Labour party. That showed that it was possible for a centre-Left party to poll a significant share of the votes without state funding or financial support from the trade unions.
I would remind hon. Members that between 1927 and 1946 we had a system of contracting in which worked satisfactorily. There were few complaints about it. It was changed in 1946 by the Labour party with the express intention of increasing its funds. Although there was no state funding and contracting in for almost 20 years this did not result in the financial collapse of the Labour party. In 1945, the Labour party won its greatest victory. Depending upon financial support from people who are not prepared to give it their votes could be debilitating for the Labour party.
When one reads in the newspapers published last weekend that Militant is on target to raise £1 million, it is clear that there is plenty of money for the Left to raise if it makes the effort. Many hon. Members might not be aware that even today in Northern Ireland the law provides for a system of contracting in. This is a matter of principle and a question of freedom of choice that is dear to the Tory party.

Mr. John Gorst: As this is a matter of principle, will my hon. Friend also go down another road and hit on the head another important matter of principle? If—I emphasise the word "if'—there is any comparison between the contributions made by people to trade unions and those made by companies, in all equity, fairness and consistency, will he agree that at some stage we shall have to consider that matter but that it is not an argument against doing what he suggests?

Mr. Townend: I would agree with my hon. Friend. He makes a valid point. There is a difference between a limited company and an individual. When I spoke in Committee on this Bill, I issued a challenge to Opposition Members. I said that if they would vote for contracting in I would positively campaign to change the law with regard to political donations by companies. I know that some of my right hon. and hon. Friends will be wary of that but in my view it is not good for politics, on the Left or the Right, for political parties to be dependent on subscriptions unless they come from people who give them freely.
There has been a great deal of support for the principle behind the new clause. I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware that over 90 of our colleagues signed the new clause thereby signifying their support for the principle. Furthermore, a considerable number of Conservative Members have told me that they do not wish publicly to show their opposition to the Government but that they regret that the Government have not dealt with the matter as they believe it to be an important principle.

Mr. Don Dixon: Why not have a secret ballot?

Mr. Townend: In reply to that seated intervention, I say that if we had a secret ballot on this, I and the hon. Gentleman would not be the only ones to be surprised at the result; other Conservative Members might be surprised by the result.
Most of the Conservative trade unionists support the principle of contracting in. This morning in The Times, the leader, giving support to the new clause, finished with the words:
The thing needs to be got right, and there will be no better time for getting it right than now.
There is a compelling argument, which I know will not be supported by many of my hon. Friends but which I think is in the long-term national interest, which is why I believe that the time for action is now—the need to have an alternative Government to the present one who will not take the country down the irreversible road to Marxism.
At the moment, the only viable alternative is the Labour party, which has the most Left-wing leader in history and which is moving to the Left year by year. A system of removing contracting out and and removing the financial support of non-Labour members from the Labour party could result in speeding up the Labour party's decline and its replacement by the alliance as an alternative to the Conservative Government.
The long-awaited realignment of British politics would be with us. It would not just be good for the alliance, it would be good for the country. I suggest to my hon. Friends that it would also be good for our party because we will not be in government for ever. In any democracy, after five, 10 or 15 years there will inevitably be a change of Government. When that comes, if the only alternative is a Marxist Government who will attack democracy and our free-market economy, that will be disastrous for our country.
I should like to say to those of my hon. Friends who signed the new clause and those who expressed sympathy with its principle that they should seriously consider going into the Lobby with us this evening. There is no danger of the Government being defeated. I have no doubt whatever that the Labour party will be voting for its funds, so there will be an unholy alliance this evening. Indeed, I would suggest that the larger the vote for the new clause the stronger the hand of the Government in future negotiations with the trade unions, and the more the pressure will be on the trade unions to deliver the voluntary agreement that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has so skilfully negotiated.
Therefore, I ask as many of my right hon. and hon. Friends as have the courage to do so, to join me in the Lobby and to put down a marker for the future.

Mr. Frank Haynes: There they are on the other side of the Chamber — the rebels of the Tory party, the "bovver" boys who are really putting in the boot. They are the storm-troopers of the Conservative party. That is what it is all about. They do not have a clue about democracy, trade unions or representation of the workers. They do not have a clue about representing the workers. many of them have not had a tool in their hands— [Laughter]—only a—

Mr. Edward Leigh: "Keep it up, Frank."

Mr. Haynes: I always thought that Tories had that sort of mind. They have given the show away.
The new clause represents an attack on the Labour party. When the hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) introduced a similar amendment in Committee, I told him that. A few moments ago he suggested that it was not an attack on the Labour party, but that it was a question of democracy and people deciding for themselves. He has a short memory, because in Committee he did nothing but attack the Labour party. In introducing the new clause, the hon. Gentleman was trying to face two ways. I have never known the trade anion movement to be attacked in the way that the Government and, in particular, the storm-troopers sitting behind the Secretary of State, are attacking it. However, the Secretary of State is being sensible about the issue.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Haynes: I have only just stood up. However, I understand that the hon. Gentleman wants to object about the storm-troopers, so I shall give way.

Mr. Hind: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend. —[HON. MEMBERS: "Hon. Friend?"] I am sorry. I forgot that I was not in court. The hon. Gentleman has spoken about storm-troopers, but what does he think of some of the flying pickets that are outside pits up and down the country? Would he call them storm-troopers? Are they full of the milk of human kindness and calmness, or are they really the "bovver" boys and storm-troopers that he should be talking about? There is a matter of principle which Conservative Members respect. I should like the hon. Gentleman to look——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions must be brief.

Mr. Haynes: I am surprised at such a suggestion from the hon. Gentleman. I have worked in the mining industry for more than 35 years and have been a trade unionist for more than 40 years. I have found the miner to be the most benevolent person in society. Conservative Members may laugh, but I am being serious. When a miner is in need of help he gets the support of his colleagues nationwide, throughout the industry. It is not right and proper to try to draw a red herring across our good argument against the new clause. But then, that is why the hon. Gentelman intervened. It was about the only thing that he could do. I would welcome it if the hon. Gentleman made a sensible contribution to our debate, but he just tried to trip me up, despite the fact that I am trying to make a sensible contribution.
The Bill, and particularly the new clause, show that the Conservative party is trying to destroy our nation's industrial relations—[Interruption.] That is the action that is being taken. I am sorry, but that is it. If Conservative Members talked to workers in their constituencies, they would get the message. I get the message — I got it last night — [Interruption.] The message was loud and clear. Miners are not accepting the Government's actions in respect of the mining industry. That is why there are flying pickets. Miners are defending their rights and jobs. It is the Conservative party that is trying to deny trade unionists their rights and their ability to defend their jobs. It is the party of unemployment and it will go on and on until the people of this nation wake up and get rid of it. Given the road that it is travelling, I


am convinced that we shall get rid of it next time. We shall then have a Socialist Government to put the people back to work and to repair the damage done to the economy.
The new clause and the Bill will only make matters worse. The situation will only get worse as a result of them. Trade unions are having their rights taken away from them and are being shackled. Many years ago I saw a film — [Interruption.] Conservative Members think that it is a joke, but this is a serious matter. The film was called "Scarface" and it starred Paul Muni. The people in the prison were in chains. The Government, and in particular the new clause, are putting chains on the trade unionists of our nation.
If the Government go on in that way, the trade unions in the future will be known as the chain gang. I remember when what is now the Housing Finance Act 1972 was introduced under the Heath Administration. That was another example of chaining, but that Government had to change their mind. The present Government will have to change their mind about their attack on the trade unions through the Bill.
The hon. Member for Bridlington referred to the fact that the alliance won all those votes in the general election without depending on the political levy. He took a swipe at the Labour party, but did not mention his own party. Mention has been made of the amount of money that poured into the Conservative party fund, but only in terms of the people who own shares. We should not forget that even my hon. Friends contribute to Conservative party funds every time they buy a pint of beer, no matter what brew it is. One cannot go into a shop and buy something, no matter what it is, without contributing to Conservative party funds. The hon. Member for Bridlington said nothing about that.—[HON. MEMBERS: "He did."] The hon. Gentleman did not mention the consumer.
I have heard the previous Secretary of State for Employment, the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), talking about people having to decide for themselves whether to pay the political levy. The consumer does not decide. No matter what the consumer picks off the shelf in the supermarket, he is contributing to Conservative party funds. He has no right to choose whether he does so or not. That is how unfair the system is and how unfair the effect of the legislation will be.
I appeal to hon. Members on the Government Benches—but it is no use appealing to the storm-troopers in the Chamber today. For me, the most embarrassing thing is that I shall have to go into the Lobby tonight. I shall have to do so in order to vote against that lot over there. The measure that they are trying to include in the Bill is vicious. I know that the hon. Member for Bridlington can be vicious verbally—I have heard him before—but this measure will be vicious in its effect on the ordinary person in the trade union movement.
9 pm
I have mentioned the CTU. That is infiltration into the trade union movement. It is the reason why we have Tories in the trade union movement. I remember the right hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Prior) encouraging Conservatives to join trade unions years ago. That was how the CTU came about. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Members ask, "Why not?" I remember Conservative Members accusing the Labour party of containing

extremists, but the Conservative party has encouraged people to join the trade union movement and be extremists. They are the people who will take the trade unions to court. It is a set-up. I shall never move from that position, and nor will my party.

Mr. Vivian Bendall: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Haynes: The hon. Gentleman did not make any speeches in Committee, and I shall not give way to him now.
We have heard mention of 10, 15 or 20 years, but after all the suffering that there has been since 1979, we shall soon be back in office to clear up the mess. We shall deal with the situation and establish fairness. My party believes in fairness. We will clip the corns of the big businesses which contribute to Conservative party funds. I said that in Committee, but I have a wider audience tonight. I tell the country what I tell my constituency party regularly—that we will clip the corns of the big businesses whose behaviour makes the Bill so unfair. The amendment is vicious and, much to my regret, I shall have to go into the Goverment Lobby in order to defeat it.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: I get the impression that the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) opposes new clause 5, although I am not at all clear why. I hope to be able to show that there are some rather better reasons than those he has adduced for being against it. I am grateful for an opportunity to speak because I owe my hon. Friends an explanation as I originally put my name to new clause 5.
The speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) reinforced my doubts about new clause 5. He asked several questions. The first was whether this was an issue of principle and whether there was a right of free choice which every trade unionist should enjoy with regard to paying a political levy. That freedom of choice exists. It might not be in the most perfect possible form, but the ability to contract out gives the individual an opportunity to exercise the freedom that my hon. Friend complains is lacking. We are arguing not so much about the principle as about the efficiency of the mechanism by which people enjoy it.
I was also unsure when my hon. Friend said that pressures could be brought to bear—he asserted that they are brought to bear—on trade unionists who are known to contract out and that that would be cured if unions went over to contracting in. It would be possible, as anyone with some small experience of the way in which the Whips work knows, for those who are known not to have contracted in to be subjected to pressures which are not dissimilar from those which could be applied to those who have contracted out. I am not at all sure that the argument is convincing either way. I am disposed to welcome the agreement that my right hon. Friend has concluded with Trades Union Congress—that guidance should be available to all trade unionists on their rights and how they should exercise them — and to give that agreement a chance to work.
My hon. Friend's second question concerned the manifesto. I concede that it is possible to get over-excited about manifestos and, from time to time, things which would have been better left unsaid are said in manifestos and vice versa. Anyone in politics should work from such a premise especially those of us who are not in the happy


position of taking part in the drafting of the manifesto. I always find it difficult to regard myself as bound by something which I have had no part in drawing up. That might be a tiresom independence in my spirit, but I am damned if I want anyone to slap a manifesto around my neck like a collar.

Mr. Roger Moate: What about the 10 commandments?

Mr. Onslow: The 10 commandments might or might not be a manifesto and I should not be in order if I pursued that point, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend for hinting at how the debate might develop and hope that he gets a chance to speak.
The third question that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington asked concerned state funding. Like him, I see no great doctrinal barrier in the argument that new clause 5 would open the way to a fundamental review of state funding of political activity. Some such review might be timely and I should be glad to add to that debate. No Social Democratic Members are present. I must point out that they have no monopoly of keenness about adopting changes in the approach to political funding.

Mr. Albert McQuarrie: They are not here.

Mr. Onslow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to that. The Government assure us that we shall discuss the deposit for parliamentary elections. It would be wrong if it were set so high that it would be possible to argue that a financial barrier was being put in the way of someone wanting to take part in parliamentary elections. It would be better to approach it on a different basis.
I have brought in that point because I want to assert that if we are to tackle state funding of political activities, we should not do so in a piecemeal way. If the new clause has the effect that is claimed for it, and if there is to be legislation, let it be taken on a comprehensive basis so that there is no question of obvious inequity in the finances of one political party being apparently singled out and the finances of others being left for another day. That would be wrong, and it would be seen to be wrong.
My hon. Friend mentioned timing. The Times editorial is always powerful to those who read The Times. To others of us the argument that there is never a good time to change from contracting out to contracting in may be persuasive. However, I do believe that time is of the essence in this case because of the point that I sought to make earlier. It is important to the Government and their supporters and to parliamentary and political life in general that the Trades Union Congress should be given time to show that it can deliver what it has undertaken to deliver.
As it is, if the new clause is incorporated in the Bill, it will have two effects. First — this is undesirable enough—it tells the TUC that we who voted the Bill in have no faith either in its intentions or in its ability to deliver. That seems to be a serious mistake, but it would be a more serious mistake if we told the Government that they should not have placed any confidence in the TUC and — [HON. MEMBERS: "Quite right."] Some hon. Members may take that view, but I see no reasons why we should not at least now give the measure a chance to work. It is far better to give the TUC a chance to deliver rather than write off the forces of moderation in the trade union

movement before they have even been given an opportunity to show what they can do, and act as recruiting sergeants for the militants, which is what I am afraid those who vote for the new clause may inadvertently be doing.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: I was not a member of the Committee on the Bill as I was busy elsewhere dealing with transport matters. However" I bring to the House the background of my experience as the first London regional education officer of the TUC after it took over the work of the National Council of Labour Colleges. I have also been a railway worker.
I am told that in Committee hon. Members referred to the origin of the trade unions, which stems partly from the legislation of 1913, but mainly from the Osborne judgment of 1909. Many Conservative Members took part in the Committee, but many others will not be so familiar with that history. If they knew more about the history of the politically oriented side of the trade union movement and its continuous attachment to the Labour party, they would get things in better balance.
The press has commented upon the TUC's discussions with the Secretary of State. I have always admired the Secretary of State, whose abilities are undoubted. He has struck a balance in the present political climate on which he should be congratulated. Having watched him in all his other activities, I never thought that I would congratulate him on his ability to talk to the TUC. Len Murray once commented that having a conversation with the Prime Minister was like having a dialogue with the deaf. In turn, she said to me, "I did not know that Mr. Murray was deaf." We seem to have moved away from that situation with the Secretary of State's proposal at least to accept the goodwill of the TUC, which has clearly pointed out that its members—particularly new members—have an absolute right not to contribute to the political fund.
9.15 pm
In a sectional debate of this kind, it is pertinent to spell out how the Osborne judgment arose. It did so because a branch secretary of the old ASRS —a forerunner of the NUR, of which I was an active member for many years—objected to the union financing a general secretary. Mr. Bell, who was running for Parliament. That went through the various processes of law until it reached the House of Lords. It became known as the Osborne judgment. The political fund was embodied in the 1913 Act.
It also underscores the special and federal characteristics of the British Labour party, which cannot be compared with any other social democratic organisation in any part of the world, particularly in western Europe. Basically, the Labour party was, and is, a social democratic organisation. Some earlier social democrats were very much attached to the ideas of Karl Marx.
The hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) does not seem able to seize hold of those facts of life. Were his intentions carried through, far from wiping out the Labour party they would stimulate it to work much harder than it does now. We have on many occasions heard the argument that the Labour party's funds might be weakened as a consequence of contracting in. That argument is akin to a historical shuttlecock. It was in the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Act 1927, which arose out of the 1926 general strike. At that time, it was regarded as a vindicative activity on the part of a reactionary Tory Government against the trade union movement and its


political counterpart, the British Labour party. Thereafter, the whole movement was pledged to reverse the position, which is what it did after its magnificent victory in 1945.
Whatever the hon. Member for Bridlington and his hon. Friends think they may be doing, they will not eradicate the British Labour party. It has been argued that Labour party funds are derived more from individual membership and local fund-raising activities than from the affiliated trade unions attached to it. However, it does not necessarily follow that one must affiliate to the Labour party. Historically, that has always been the sensible thing to do, but I recall that when one Labour Government operated a so-called incomes policy—it was really wage restraint, against which I was a rebel — some of the smaller unions disaffiliated from the Labour party as a consequence, they still had their political funds to use as they thought best under the democratic facilities of every trade union movement.
I have a profound interest in these matters. I came here as a NUR member, and later I transferred to the Transport and General Workers Union. I am now sponsored by that union, which has the biggest group of trade union members in the House of Commons. It is a very sensible and well-balanced group of hon. Members. However, that will be challenged if the funds of the trade unions are weakened, for within those organisations is the democratic machinery to establish the rules under which they proceed.
Set against the background of history, the whole affair is seen as a rather vindictive act on the part of a section of Conservative Members who do not understand the whirlwind that they will reap in consequence of the action that they are seeking to take today. My comments do not, of course, apply to those Conservative Members who will be supporting the Government tonight. If the section of Conservative Members to whom I refer were simultaneously proposing legislation to prevent limited liability companies from making their very big donations to the Tory party —donations donations without which the Tory party could not exist—the position would be rather different. From time to time we see the list of donations made by those companies to the Tory party, and we also see the special privileges and honours that are given to the heads of the industries concerned. They make handsome contributions to the Tory party and what happens thereafter is a quid pro quo. [Interruption.] I repeat that if those Conservative Members who are challenging the Government's position this evening were simultaneously coming forward with proposals to democratise the position, and making suggestions simultaneously with regard to companies' funds and trade union funds, they could be given a degree of credibility that we cannot give them tonight.

Mr. Barry Porter: rose——

Mr. Bidwell: My hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) made some valid points in his very spirited speech. It is correct to say that the Government tonight are acting a little more sensibly than they have done of late, and I have no doubt that, when the Minister has made his statement on the position, sensible Conservative Members will be joining me and my hon. Friends in rejecting the ultra-Right wing Members of the Tory party, who will be deservedly defeated in the Lobbies.

Dr. Michael Clark: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for calling me to speak, and you have probably done so because I have indicated that it is my wish to speak this evening. I doubt whether you called me because you assume that everyone in the House wishes to speak unless indicating otherwise. That is what we are talking about tonight—whether we opt in or opt out.
When we vote at an election we do not cross out the names of the people for whom we do not wish to vote. We positively vote for those for whom we wish to vote. Likewise, when we belong to a club or society that may organise a dinner or an outing, it cannot be taken for granted that we shall all support what is proposed for a week's time or a month's time. We are invited to indicate whether or not we support what is proposed.
Therefore, we have nationally a system of opting in and positively identifying those things that we wish to do. We do not in this country have a system of opting out. Therefore, it is quite inappropriate to have a system of opting out in regard to a political levy—particularly when the political levy, if it is collected, goes to only one political party.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) has said, there were at the last general election perhaps 3 million trade unionists who voted for the Conservative party and perhaps another 1 million who voted for the SDP. Therefore, nearly half the trade unionists in this country did not support the Labour party, which benefits from the political levy.
The Labour party may think that it has a freehold on the trade union movement, but it may not even have a leasehold and, if it does, it may be only a short leasehold. It certainly has no right to expect automatically to collect a ground rent.
A system of opting out is not in line with the Conservative philosophy of individual freedom or with our national philosophy of indicating positively what we wish to do. The opting-out system is as unacceptable as having books or Christmas cards put through one's door on the basis that one will pay for them unless one says otherwise.
I understand that the TUC has told the Secretary of State that it will ensure that opting out is made easier in future. But can the TUC deliver that promise? It has previously made promises that have not always been honoured and it has not always had the power to deliver what it promises.
If my right hon. Friend is to have the support of every Conservative Member, we must be satisfied that the promises from the TUC are gilt-edged and we shall look to the Secretary of State to ensure that he gets what has been promised. I am frightened about the coercion that might be exerted on those who opt out. If coercion can stop people earning £140 a week or more in the coalfields, I am sure that it could be used to ensure that people pay 35p or 50p a week for the political levy.
I am not against trade union membership. On the contrary, I am for it. I am not against employers collecting the political levy if that is the wish of union members. However, the levy should be collected in the same way that employers collect for savings plans or holiday schemes. Employees should positively indicate that they want to pay the levy.

Mr. Barry Porter: I am following my hon. Friend's argument with interest, but, if trade unionists are to be required to give a positive indication


of their desire to pay the political levy, must it not follow that shareholders should also have to make a positive indication, presumably by way of a special resolution, that they wish their companies to do the same thing?

Dr. Clark: I do not argue against that view, but I am talking about opting in and opting out in trade unions and not in companies.
If those who favour the opting-out system believe that a large number of trade union members would continue to pay the political levy under an opting-in system, they need not fear a move to such a system. However, if they do not believe that trade union members would continue to pay the political levy if the system were changed, they must consider whether it is right to continue to support the opting-out system.
I am strongly inclined to support new clause 5 and I will do so unless we have a solemn and gilt-edged promise from the Secretary of State that if the TUC does not give a secure promise or does not keep its promise in the future, he will bring in legislation to ensure that the opting-out system is replaced by the opting-in system.

Mr. Fatchett: As he moved the new clause, the hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) showed the two sides of his character:on the one hand as the alleged champion of the individual, and on the other—this came towards the end of his speech as the mask fell away —as someone who wanted to attack the finances of the Labour party.
From the hon. Gentleman's point of view, the new clause represents an attack on Labour's finances. Indeed, he makes no bones about that. He has an unlikely dream, though I suspect that, after many years in the political wilderness, dreams are all he is left with. As part of his dream, he wants to see the Labour party replaced by the Liberal-SDP alliance. I suppose that the first stage in that dream would be for the Liberals and Social Democrats to join together. The second stage—in effect this is the purpose of the new clause—is that by attacking the Labour party, the main Opposition party and weakening its finances, the point is reached at which it is unable to be regarded as an alternative to the Government.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: rose——

Mr. Fatchett: I shall give way later.
In the first part of his speech the hon. Member for Bridlington tried to establish himself as the champion of the individual. Has he given a number of hostages to fortune, or does his record live up to him being regarded as a champion of the individual? For example, does he support members of the Conservative party who are asking to see the accounts of their party—some of them have been asking to see the accounts for the last three years — or does he agree with the treasurer of the Conservative party, that to reveal the accounts might give ammunition to Tory opponents?
Was he a champion of the individual over the events at GCHQ, when people's basic and fundamental rights to belong to a trade union were taken from them? I suspect that he was not. Indeed, I suspect that the vast majority of those who support his new clause are not champions of individual trade unionists.
Does the hon. Member for Bridlington champion the cause of the 3·5 million people in Britain who want the

right to work and are currently unemployed? I do not see any sympathy for them on the Conservative Benches. Those individuals deserve concern, but they will not get it from the hon. Member for Bridlington and those who support his new clause.
As for the support of the hon. Member for Bridlington for democracy, are we likely to see that manifest itself in the democratic elections in the metropolitan counties and for the GLC in 1985? Will we then see him supporting the rights of individuals to cast their votes?
I suspect that the opening part of the hon. Gentleman's speech was designed to gain for him a little favour among his hon. Friends. He wanted to come over as a nice guy. Perhaps he has been on a salesmen's course and has been told that, after knocking, he should get his foot in the door and — despite all the obvious limitations in the hon. Gentleman's case—try to appeal as a nice guy to the prospective purchaser.
As the hon. Gentleman went on, the real truth slipped out. He was making an attack on the finances of the Labour party. We can reach that conclusion because he produced no concrete evidence of people being denied the right to opt out of paying the political levy.

Mrs. Jill Knight: Really!

Mr. Fatchett: I gather from that remark that the hon. Lady has evidence available to her. If so, why has she not brought it forward?

Mrs. Knight: The evidence is so thick on the ground that only the thick do not notice it.

Mr. Fatchett: Without wishing to comment on the nature of that thick evidence, I can only conclude that, with all the evidence around her feet, the hon. Lady has not had time to look at it. Has she noticed, for example, that 2 million people have opted out of paying the political levy? They have not had any trouble in doing that That is concrete evidence in the opposite direction. I was the treasurer of a trade union branch in which 70 per cent. of the members did not pay the political levy. I should have liked more of them to pay it, but none of them had any difficulty in opting out in that branch. I speak from experience in these matters. I doubt whether there is much of that on the Tory Benches.

Mr. Tracey: Does the hon. Gentleman remember Jack Cleminson, who spent 13 years trying to recoup the political levy money that had been wrongly deducted from his pay?

Mr. Fatchett: I wish to cite concrete evidence in the other direction. In the 1960s, the Donovan commission interviewed Robert Carr, then Conservative spokesman on employment. Mr. Can claimed that evidence was thick on the ground that people were being denied the right to contract out. Clearly, not many Conservative Members have read the Donovan report. Referring to Mr. Carr's evidence, it said at paragraph 923:
He thought … that he might be able to supply details of specific cases if given the time"—
an expectation apparently not fulfilled as the commission reached the firm and clear conclusion that there was no evidence of abuse in relation to the right to contract out.
I suspect that some Conservative Members could have given evidence to the more recent Select Committee investigation at which oral evidence was given by the director general of the Engineering Employers Federation, Dr. James McFarlane—not, I suspect, a Labour party


supporter or one keen to see as many people as possible paying the levy. He, too, was asked whether he could provide evidence, as he, too, had claimed that it was thick on the ground— it is when people are asked to give concrete examples that their case fails—but replied:
Not anything that I think you would recognise as evidence".
On so many occasions Conservative Members have failed to provide evidence, showing clearly that facts and evidence will not move immobile prejudice one iota— and there is plenty of immobile prejudice on the Tory Benches today.
There is one compulsory political levy in this country —company donations to the Conservative party paid for by shareholders who do not have the right to opt out, consumers who do not have the right to opt out and employees who create the companies' wealth but do not have the right to opt out of seeing that wealth go in donations to the party which has achieved a total of 4·5 million unemployed. When the Labour party returns to office in 1987, we must tackle that abuse. I hope that the hon. Member for Bridlington will help us, given his objection to compulsory political levies and donations.

Sir Paul Bryan (Boothferry): I congratulate my neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) on a very good speech, but I do not intend to vote for his new clause. I agree with his general attitude towards the political levy. It is absolutely wrong that for about 50 of the past 70 years many trade unionists have been under pressure, great or small, to contribute to a party that they do not support.
I do not accept the evidence of the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett). As this debate has gone on over the years, the Donovan quotation is always trotted out. But there are two truths which cannot be gainsaid. First, time and again Labour Members say that contracting out would be a "body blow" to their finances. Why should it be a body blow if there are not now people subscribing who would not spontaneously subscribe? The second unanswerable piece of evidence is the fact, as has been said several times tonight, that there are unions—not every union of course—in which 80, 90 even 100 per cent., of the members pay the political levy. As we all know, in the last election fewer than 40 per cent. of trade unionists voted Labour. Clearly, there is something fishy there. Just as we all smile when we hear of a Communist dictator getting 100 per cent. of the votes, it is just as ridiculous to assume that when it is said that 100 per cent. of a trade union's membership wants to pay the political levy, somebody somewhere is not being pushed along towards that end.
I probably differ from my hon. Friend because of our different backgrounds in industrial relations. I do not claim to know more about industrial relations than he does. He has been my neighbour in Yorkshire for a long time. He has been an active and effective chairman of the Humberside county council and I do not doubt that in that capacity he has a lot to do with trade unions. My industrial relations background is over many years in the textile industry in the West Riding. However, tonight I am more conditioned by my experience as Minister of State, Department of Employment in the early 1970s. In that position I had a lot to do with the 1971 legislation. That Act was not an unqualified success but not because we had

not put a lot of thought into it. Never has a party prepared more for legislation than we did for the Act of 1971. For three or four years previously Conservative Members worked hard researching for it and we knew exactly what we would do when we got into power. But if I were asked now why things did not go so well I would say that we tried to do too much at one time. We put several major reforms into one Bill and it was too big a helping to swallow. If I had to do it again I would do it in several Bills, one after another.
That is why, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Prior), who is now the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, introduced the step-by-step approach I thought that he was right to do so. As each step is made, in whatever Bill, there is always a group, as there is tonight, which says, quite reasonably, that reform is too slow. Each time that happens and each time we have a minor rebellion, we never know who is right and who is wrong. We shall never know whether those who say that we are going too slowly are right, because it cannot be proved.
However, in my view since 1979 industrial relations in Britain have improved a lot. Unlike Labour Members, I do not put that down to the fact that trade unionists have become cowed by unemployment. The totality of legal reforms have been effective. All Britain saw on television the disgraceful violence being perpetrated on a small company in Warrington. Everybody knew that that was wrong. The matter was finally dealt with in the courts. The National Graphical Association was heavily fined, and nobody with a reasonable mind could have said that justice was not done.
We now have a distressing miners' strike. It does not bear much resemblance to the previous trouble, in that at least we are trying to operate the law. The police are enabling people to go to work. At the same time the National Coal Board is not necessarily using its powers of injunction. The board has the powers, if it wants to use them, and that is very healthy. The step-by-step approach in my view has produced results. Now we come to the next step, and the Secretary of State has decided on this agreement with the TUC. I agree with him, and I think that he should be allowed to go ahead. The Times today speaks of the solemn and binding agreements of the past. Those solemn and binding agreements got a bad name because they were always a face-saving device of Governments who were losing a battle. This time, we are speaking from a position of great strength. We are making this offer. If things go wrong, there are steps that we can take. I put my faith in the Secretary of State to monitor this with great severity. I believe that there is a good chance of winning, and he should be given a chance to win.

Mr. David Alton: It is good to hear the hon. Member for Boothferry (Sir P. Bryan) putting such faith in the Secretary of State, but I and my hon. and right hon. Friends will be voting with the hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend), because we have more confidence in new clause 5, which we believe sets out to do a number of valuable things.
The three reasons why we shall support new clause 5 are as follows. First, we believe that the present system distorts the political picture, and unfairly benefits one political party. Secondly, we think that the present system


works unfairly from the members' point of view. Thirdly, we think that the present system offends the concept of a secret ballot.
I have listened carefully to the contributions that have been made from both sides of the House, and to the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell), who referred to the Osborne judgment, and the history of how the contracting-out and contracting-in debate began during the passage of the Trade Unions (No. 2) Bill 1912. I have taken the trouble to refer to the debate which took place in the House in 1912. Indeed, the same dilemma faced the House in those days that faces the House tonight. The then Attorney-General, Sir Rufus Isaacs, in commending the Bill to the House, said:
I found it quite impossible by any definition to draw the line between what is industrial and what is political. I am speaking not only of what I have done myself, but with the assistance of many who are well qualified to incorporate definitions in a Bill. We have all arrived at the same conclusion, and I am quite certain that it will be unanimous, that you cannot say that at a particular point a thing ceases to be industrial and becomes political." — Official Report, 6 August 1912; Vol XLI, c. 2980.]
That is a problem that has beset the trade union movement in terms of its role in British industry for the last 70 years. Indeed, one has only to consider the grey area that exists at present with regard to the miners' strike—this was mentioned earlier—to realise that that narrowly drawn definition of what is political and what is industrial is often crossed.
In the city of Liverpool last week, I saw an example of how trade unionists were used for political reasons and how political funds were clearly manipulated for purely political objectives, something that had nothing to do with good industrial relations. If it were not for the great milestones in trade union history, and the battles that had to be fought, and were won, from the Tolpuddle martyrs onwards, I am sure that we would never have been agreeing to the establishment of political funds at all. However, they are a fact of life. It is worth our while tonight, therefore, to consider whether they are operating fairly, or whether it is high time that we reformed the way in which they operate.
I would argue, as did the hon. Member for Bridlington, for a system of state financing of political parties. I also think that far too much reliance——

Mr. John Townend: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I did not argue for a system of state financing but for a change from contracting out to contracting in, which would not necessarily bring about a system of state financing.

Mr. Alton: I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman. I hope that one day he will be converted to the cause to which many of us were converted many years ago. It would end the reliance of the Labour party on trade unions and of the Conservative party on big business if we had a proper system of state financing of political parties.
What is more, political parties should put more reliance on their own fund raising and not on putting their hands into other people's pockets. The old adage, "Whose bread I eat, whose song I sing," is true and one need only look at the state of British politics to realise that. The trade unions supplied 80 per cent. of the Labour party funds. At the end of 1982, 59 unions had political funds, 82 per cent. of the members paid the levy, and in 1981, some £4·8 million was spent from the political fund of the trade

unions, almost exclusively on the Labour party. However, many of those who contributed towards that political fund did not vote Labour.
One has only to look at the MORI poll on how trade unionists voted at the last general election to realise how much money taken from people who paid the political levy is given to a party that they do not support. In the general election last year, some 31 per cent. of trade unionists voted Conservative, some 39 per cent. voted Labour and some 29 per cent. supported the Liberal-SDP alliance. It is particularly interesting to look at how women members of trade unions voted. Some 34 per cent. of them voted Conservative, 34 per cent. voted Labour and 31 per cent. for the alliance.
In the south of England, the position was even more distorted, with the Conservative party polling 35 per cent. of trade union votes and the Liberal-SDP alliance and the Labour party both polling 32 per cent. However, almost all of the political funds went into the coffers of the Labour party. Therefore, my first argument is that the political fund distorts the picture and unfairly benefits one party.
My second argument is that the present system is not working fairly. Some unions clearly ensure that people are left with no choice but to remain in, or people are never made aware of their rights. The unions have never fully explained the pronounced disparity between the way that the levy is operated in one union and the way it is operated in another. In one third of the unions with political funds, the proportion of members contributing to it exceeded 90 per cent., in 14 it was over 95 per cent., while in 11 it was under 40 per cent.
Some hon. Members explain this away by saying that some members will not feel it incumbent on them to contribute, and they feel no pressure to join, and we have heard the experiences of someone who collected the levy. If one looks at the other side of the argument, one wonders how such hon. Members can explain why in the Wales area of the National Union of Mineworkers, all 100 per cent. of the workers pay a political levy, when in the Durham area only 37 per cent. contract to do so and in the Northumberland area only 36 per cent. Surely it is not a problem of regional disparities, but that in one area more pressure was placed on members than in the other area.

Mr. Evans: Does the hon. Gentleman understand that in the Durham and Northumberland areas of the NUM, the members have two options? They can opt to pay either for the national fund or for the area fund. Some members opt to pay for both funds, but some opt to pay to the national fund and not to the area fund. It is not that 30, 40 or 50 per cent. of the Durham miners opt out of paying the national political levy but that they decide not to pay both political levies.

Mr. Alton: The hon. Gentleman will find that in 14 unions the proportion was over 95 per cent. What the hon. Gentleman says does not apply to all of those. It does not apply either to the Transport and General Workers Union, where only 1·6 per cent. of the members contracted out —1,668,713 of the 1,695,818 members paid the levy in 1981 to just one party. The psephological evidence is clearly against that.—[Interruption.] That just does not square up. Labour Members who are making so much noise know that that is the truth. Contracting out is more difficult in some unions than in others. Many unions do not take adequate steps to ensure that their members know


that they can contract out and how to do so. Many do not even know that they are paying a political levy. It is normal practice for unions to compound normal subscriptions and contributions to the levy to produce a single contribution rate. Many members do not know that they are paying the levy when they pay that compounded contribution.
The principle of the 1913 Act was that no trade union member should be obliged to support financially any political organisation if he did not wish to do so. Clearly, that principle is being violated.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) should not read her newspaper in the Chamber.

Mr. Alton: That is the second reason why hon. Members on both sides of the House should support the new clause.
My third reason for supporting new clause 5 is that the political levy offends against the concept of the secret ballot. It is thoroughly objectionable that any individual should be forced to reveal his political views by openly avoiding paying a political due. That action makes him a marked man. The reality of life on the ground is that many people may have good reason to keep their political sympathies to themselves.

Mr. John Prescott: What does the hon. Gentleman know about life on the ground?

Mr. Alton: I shall give the hon. Gentleman one example of life on the ground, because he asks for it. Last week, one of my constituents in Liverpool, who is a head teacher at a primary school, telephoned me telling me that she and her colleagues had been told by the caretaker, a member of a different union, that, because they had decided not to participate in the day of action last Thursday, their names would be taken if they went in to work. If there were later to be school closures and redundancies they would be the first on the list. That is the type of intimidation people face. I am concerned about individual rights. Life on the ground is about such threats against people.

Mr. Ron Davies: Name them.

Mr. Alton: I shall name them. They include the moderate members of the Labour party who refused to vote last week for illegal measures. Those moderate members refused to vote for an illegal budget. They were told by a Labour politician, who said that he had the mass backing of the trade union movement behind him, that the moderates would have to face 50,000 people when they went into and came out of the union meeting. He told them that, if they did not do what he wanted, they would become political lepers. That is what it is like on the ground. That is why some people are marked men. Their political sympathies should be safeguarded.
The courts are an unrealistic remedy in a world where employment prospects are limited and fear is the order of the day. Contracting out is a semi-public act and can, undoubtedly, lead to victimisation. Ultimately, this matter should be left to each individual. The Guardian said:
Nearly half of all trade union members would vote against their union having a political fund if given the chance to do so,

according to a Marplan poll … And nearly threequarters think donations to the Labour Party ought to be a matter for individual rather than corporate union decision.
Instead of doing what trade union, and even many Government, supporters wanted, the Government have taken the line of least resistance — a statement of guidance. It will prove to be ineffectual and simply cosmetic. That is why I and my right hon. and hon. Friends shall vote with the hon. Member for Bridlington for the new clause.

Mr. Cecil Franks: Many Conservative Back Benchers are profoundly disturbed at the failure of a Conservative Government to accept and adopt the principle of contractingin.
We are not natural rebels. We do not seek the martyrdom that others seem to find in perpetual criticism of former ministerial colleagues. We are loyal to our party and to its principles, and wish to remain so. One of the supreme principles of the Conservative party—the one on which we stand apart from and above the Labour party—is our belief in and commitment to the freedom of the individual.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Trade Union Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. David Hunt.]

Mr. Franks: We owe our position as a Government and, many of us, our Membership of the House, to the support and votes of trade unionists. We promised them freedom from trade union servitude and liberty from the trade union mafia which imposes its will by fear. They trusted us and we are being asked to betray that trust.
We find it absurd and repugnant that millions who voted against a political party, and the industrial cancer which is so enshrined in the constitution of the Labour party, are obliged to finance the organisation of a political party that they detest and abhor.
Compulsory membership of a trade union is simply industrial blackmail. The payment of the political levy is no more and no less than the extraction of protection money.
It is naive at the least, and dishonest at the worst, to believe that individual trade unionists—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House is becoming very much out of order. Things are frequently said in the Chamber on both sides with which hon. Members disagree, but hon. Members have the right to be heard.

Mr. Franks: —will be permitted in freedom to contract out. We deceive ourselves and seek to deceive others, if we pretend that there will be no compulsion, subtle or overt, to inhibit and intimidate those who seek to contract out.
Are we so blind that we cannot grasp the lesson of the miners' strike——

Mr. Martin Flannery: Yes, you are.

Mr. Franks: —and so many similar lessons that litter the industrial scene? The trade unionists' worst enemy are the comrades who posture and parade as their best friends while seeking to advance the revolution that they believe


is the essential prerequisite of a true Socialist society. The standard of living of the individual has been retarded, not advanced, by the so-called trade union solidarity.
If we reject the compulsion of the individual, we must regard with equal anxiety the compulsion exercised collectively, as expressed in the new clause. That must be the last resort, not the first.
I have listened carefully to the Secretary of State's recent statements. I note that the Trades Union Congress has agreed with him to introduce procedures to make wider known and to facilitate contracting out. I do not believe that the trade unions will deliver or that they have the will to deliver, but it is far better now that they should have the opportunity.
I have noted the commitment that, if the trade unions fail voluntarily to reform contracting out procedures, legislation will be introduced to replace them with the contracting in which so many of us feel is long overdue from a Conservative Government.
I cannot speak for those who are minded to support the new clause; I can speak only for myself. I hope that I have made it clear that my support for the Government is reluctant, but, far more important, it is conditional. If the TUC fails to deliver and if, in turn, the Government fail to introduce the necessary consequent legislation, the latent and potential rebellion on the Conservative Back Benches will become a reality, and a reality not to be ignored, I hope that that will not come to pass, but let there be no illusion: if it should be necessary, it will.

Mr. Winnick: I declare an interest, in that my trade union contributes towards my election expenses. The hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) has his own business interests. I see that he is involved in a number of companies and is a member of Lloyd's. We also know him as an active campaigner against wages councils. He obviously believes that those on low incomes are receiving too much money, so it is not surprising that he should have moved the new clause. I remember his partner, the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall), from the time when I represented another constituency. He is, the owner of an estate agent business. I believe that he inherited it. Whatever friends he may have had before entering the House, I am sure that none of them would have said that he was an expert on industrial relations.
There may be a potential rebellion on the Government Benches, but it is interesting to note that it is not about the right of people to remain members of a trade union at GCHQ Cheltenham, or against the abolition of metropolitan county councils which, because they happen to be Labour-controlled, offend the Government of the day, or against rate-capping. It is a rebellion by the most Right-wing elements within the Tory party. Indeed, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bridlington, because he has given the game away. Towards the end of his speech he explained precisely why he was moving the new clause. His reasons had nothing to do with trade union or individual rights. It was clear that he wanted to introduce the new clause and cripple the Labour party's finances in order to prevent it from being in a position to oppose the Government and to form a Government of its own in due course. The hon. Gentleman said as much. That is the purpose of his new clause. It betrays a totalitarian frame of mind if, just because one does not happen to like the

main Opposition party of the day, one believes that one should do one's utmost, by means of a majority, to cripple its finances.

Mr. Lawrence: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in giving way. Is he telling the House and the country that he does not believe that the Labour party could raise its money by any means other than the compulsory political levy?

Mr. Winnick: I anticipated that question and shall certainly deal with it in due course——

Mr. McQuarrie: Answer now.

Mr. Winnick: I think the hon. Gentleman will realise that I have every intention of answering the question. However, we have an odd sort of political alliance today. The Right wing of the Tory party, the Liberals and the SDP have all come together. I can understand the Liberal party's attitude. It has held that view for some time. However, it was not much strengthened by the rather disgraceful speech of the Liberal spokesman, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton). Some of his colleagues might have made a more honourable speech and would not have uttered the smears and innuendos that we hear so often from him.
I cannot have much respect, however, for SDP Members. When they were members of the Labour party, they did not on any occasion criticise or question the link between the trade unions and the Labour party. I cannot remember the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) or any of his colleagues getting up at Labour party meetings and saying that contracting out was wrong and that the system should be reversed, but the moment that they changed parties they found themselves in that queer type of political alliance that I have mentioned.
The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) asked me a question which he thought I would find difficult to answer. He asked whether the Labour party would find it difficult to raise money without the present system. I shall answer that question as honestly and frankly as I can, but perhaps not in the way that the hon. and learned Gentleman might expect. The Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Act 1927 was a punishment for the role of the Labour party in the general strike. Contracting in was substituted for contracting out, and I do not wish to deny that the Labour party's finances were hurt. No trade union would deny it either.
My argument is that the Conservative party has tremendous financial advantages which the Labour party, lacks. I have here a list of donators to the Conservative party. It includes Bowater, Du Pont, GEC, Imperial Group, Marley, Consolidated Gold Fields, Eagle Star and Fisons. Over the years those companies have contributed considerable sums of money to the Conservative party. None of the shareholders in those companies were asked whether they wished such donations to be made. There was no contracting out. There was no balloting.
Conservative Members are keen to criticise, but they should try and listen. The Opposition's criticism is that in the trade unions there is a right to contract out, and that right is often exercised. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill admitted that when he referred to places where the option of contracting out had been taken up by quite a large number of NUM members. No evidence at


all has been produced that union members are not able to contract out. In the case of company donations, there is no right in law of contracting out.

Mr. Bowen Wells: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Winnick: I shall not give way at the moment.
Most of the knighthoods conferred since 1979 have gone to the chairmen of companies which have made donations to the Tory party. Why has there been no criticism of that connection between financial donations to the Tory party and the giving of knighthoods?

Mr. Bowen Wells: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) is clearly not giving way.

Mr. Winnick: At the general election it was estimated that the Tory party had some £15 million to £20 million at its disposal should it wish to use it, against the Labour party's £2·5 million. That was the difference.

Mr. Bendall: Would the hon. Gentleman care to tell the House where those statistics come from?

Mr. Winnick: The information about company donations has been published. It is not in dispute. None of those companies when they read Hansard, will challenge what I say. On my other point, no one has seriously challenged the fact that the Conservative party had such a considerable sum of money at its disposal. Hon. Gentlemen must not argue at the kindergarten level. They know that the Conservative party had far more money than the Labour party.

Mr. Bowen Wells: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on this matter?

Mr. Winnick: I normally give way, but I shall not give way on this occasion. There are many other hon. Members who wish to speak, and I have already given way to the hon. Member for Ilford, North.
The Conservative party often argues that individual contributions to its coffers from members are important, as well as company donations. I would not deny that, but company contributions are extremely important.

Mr. Bowen Wells: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on this issue?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has made it clear that he is not prepared to give way.

Mr. Winnick: Company contributions are extremely important to its funds otherwise the Conservative party would not go out of its way to solicit that amount of money. The ability of Labour party members, especially during the past three or four years in which we have experienced the recession and mass unemployment, to contribute to party funds has been far less than that of Conservative party members. There is no comparison between the abilities of the average Tory activist and the average Labour activist to contribute to party funds.
10.15 pm
There is no need for any Labour Member to apologise for the way in which we collect our money. We were founded without privilege and have never received

substantial contributions other than from trade unions and individuals. We have never received the type of contributions from companies that I have mentioned. New clause 5 aims simply to make it even more difficult for the Labour party to raise cash and to be able to organise effectively. I see that the hon. Member for Ilford, North is nodding agreement. There is a dictatorial or totalitarian character in some Conservative Members who want to take away the Labour party's right to be able to organise and carry out its functions in a political democracy.
The Conservative party now has a large majority. Conservative Members should bear it in mind that, although it is nice to have a majority of more than 100 and to know that the next general election is at least three years away the Labour movement has a pretty long memory. We have not forgotten the last time that the Conservatives used their majority—in 1927—to cripple Labour party funds.
It is foolish to under-estimate the memory of people who are active in the Labour movement. I assure Conservative Members that when there is a Labour Government there will be a need to examine carefully how companies contribute to the Tory party. I want shareholders to have the same rights in companies when it comes to political donations as do trade unionists. Irrespective of whether new clause 5 is accepted, Conservative Members should be aware that we are not likely to forget how they were willing to use their majority in the House to undermine and, if possible, cripple the political finances of the main Opposition party.

Mr. Bowen-Wells: As the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) would not give way to me, I am especially grateful for the opportunity to put my point to him. He might not be aware that company donations to the Conservative party amount to only 20 per cent. of the total, the rest being contributed by individual members in every constituency in the country. The Labour party should be able to learn something from that lesson. I do not believe that new clause 5 is an attack on the Labour party. The proof of the pudding is in the eating—the Labour party worked under a contracting in scheme after 1926 and, while still under that system, regained power in 1945, with a much increased majority, similar to that which the Conservatives now enjoy.
It would appear that the contracting-in system considerably weakens the Labour party and has contributed to its recent difficulties of organisation.

Mr. John Evans: The hon. Gentleman has just given some figures in connection with the relationship between what is contributed by big business and what is contributed by Conservative constituency organisations. Will he tell the House and the country how he can justify those figures when the Conservative party does not publish full financial accounts?

Mr. Wells: The accounts that are published at the Conservative party annual conference are the ones on which I am relying. They are available to the public throughout the country. They show clearly where the Conservative party is financed from.
The point that I am trying to make is that the clause is not an attack on the Labour party or the trade union movement. The trade union movement will be unaffected if contracting-in becomes the -norm. This is about individual rights. It is a question of choice. It is a matter of individuals being able to exercise that choice fairly and


without harassment because of their political views. this is the principle that we guard and should guard with our lives — the individual's ability to decide without harassment which way to vote.
The problem is that at present, because of the contracting-out system, each person who does not agree with the political levy must declare his political allegiance. I agree with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) that that undermines the concept of secret ballots. I have seen it happen.
We were asked for examples. Even in a moderate union such as ASTMS, the form on which one can opt out of the political levy was changed in 1975, when the former Leader of the Opposition was the Secretary of State for Employment, to eliminate the box in which one could opt out. My wife was involved in that. There was a closed shop, and she had to ask for that form, but there has no box on it where she could opt out because it was eliminated by ASTMS. Eventually, six months later, it dragged up an old form with a box for opting out. That is typical of the way in which it has been made difficult for people who do not wish to pay the political levy to opt out. Other speakers have given figures.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Does my hon. Friend recall that in March last year Gavin Laird, the general secretary of the AUEW, was quoted in the press as saying:
We make it as difficult as we possibly can to contract out of paying the political levy".

Mr. Wells: That was a good intervention. I thank my hon. Friend for making it.
I wanted to give an example of the closed shop under the AUEW. People dare not opt out because, if they did so, their union card might be taken away, which means that they would have no job of work. That shows the harassment in the trade union movement up and down the country.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made an agreement with the TUC to try to stop that harassment and make it easy to opt out. I respect and indeed admire the ability of my right hon. Friend, who is trying to persuade the trade union movement—rather than use the draconian powers that we could opt for — that that wrong needs desperately to be put right, and who is trying to give it an opportunity of putting that right.
However, the track record of the TUC and the unions in general is not good. There is at present an example in the coal miners' dispute. Some people are wantonly overriding the code of practice on picketing, which is a voluntary code. Many of the pickets are breaking a law passed in the House, which is not voluntary. Therefore, the trade union movement does not even respect the law passed in the House, let alone voluntary codes of conduct.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State may have misplaced his trust in the TUC which, after all, is a federation of unions. It does not have the power to impose an agreement made with my right hon. Friend on its

constituent member unions. I very much doubt whether we shall get a satisfactory system to right the wrong from which we are presently suffering.

Mrs. Jill Knight: Would my hon. Friend feel happier about assurances from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State if a time limit were placed on agreement with the TUC? Would not my hon. Friend agree that if, after a certain time, the TUC was unable to agree, something should then be done?

Mr. Bowen Wells: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her remarks. I was just coming to those matters.
I shall listen carefully when my right hon. Friend replies to the conditions that he thinks should appropriately be placed on his undertaking with the TUC. I would be persuaded to support him in the trust that he has exhibited in the trade union movement if he set, say, a maximum of two years—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] It may be too long, but I shall be listening carefully to discover whether or not the TUC will implement this undertaking properly and thoroughly.
I, and, I hope, the Government, will support the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton). That will not allow employers to deduct the political levy unless the trade union member has given them instructions to do so. As the press has pointed out, I hope that my right hon. Friend will give an undertaking to introduce such a provision in another place.
I am also tempted to support new clause 9 tabled by the alliance parties. There must be control over the management of the political funds of trade unions. Not only do they use such funds to exact promises and undertakings from the Labour party in the form of political blackmail, but they use them to promote their own party political viewpoints. That is entirely wrong for trade unions, which should conduct their affairs in furtherance of their members' terms and conditions of employment rather than in a political manner.
If the unions wish to come here to conduct their affairs in a political forum, by all means let them do so, but to use the political muscle of the mass trade union movement for political purposes undermines the democracy that we all hold dear. I shall listen closely to what my right hon. Friend says and to the conditions that he is prepared to place on his agreement with the TUC.

Mr. Robert Litherland: The hon. Gentleman has alleged that anyone opting out of a political fund has his trade union card taken away, thereby losing his job. Will he name the unions concerned, because I do not believe that that has happened?

Mr. Bowen Wells: I am quoting a specific example from my own constituency. I shall give the name and address to the hon. Gentleman in private — [HON. MEMBERS: "Do it now."] The union is the AEUW, but I am not prepared to name the person now as it would endanger his job. That is what I am complaining about tonight.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: I can understand the pique that was expressed by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) tonight. As a member of the Liberal party he will, of course, be aware that the early trade unionists—certainly those at the turn of the century—became fully aware that the Liberal party was not the party to which the trade unions should be related. That was why they created the Labour party. I can well understand the feelings of the hon. Member for Mossley Hill in now condemning the trade union movement for its relationship with and affiliation to the Labour party. That relationship and affiliation have gone on historically for the whole of this century.
Conservative Members who have raised the question of the membership of trade unions, and who are opposed to trade unions continuing their association with the Labour party by the political levy, are completely unaware of the realities of the trade union movement. That was evident during the Committee stage of the Bill. It has been clear that they know little or nothing of the affairs of the trade union movement.
My hon. Friends have said during the debate that there appears to be no impediment to opting out of the political levy, for the numbers that have been given show quite clearly that where union members want to opt out they can do so without great hindrance.
The Government's real intentions are now known to the House. I do not think that those who served on the Committee were ever under any illusions about those intentions. The Tories have now dropped any pretence that the Bill is other than a blatant attack upon the trade union movement, with the intention of weakening, if not demolishing, it. I am certain that, no matter what the Conservative Government do or attempt to do, the trade union movement, which in the past has withstood the pressures put on it by Governments, will not only survive but flourish against the background of the viciousness shown by this Government since they were elected in 1979.
The Government's intention — they have made it patently clear— is to remove or weaken all forms of opposition to them. We have seen it in their attack upon local authorities. We have seen it in their attack upon the metropolitan counties. We now see it in their attack upon the trade union movement.
Local authorities, as a consequence of the Government's policy, have mass unemployment among their communities. The city of Liverpool has attempted to alleviate some of those problems by standing firm on the policies for which the Labour party in Liverpool was elected. The punishment that the Labour councillors are receiving from the Government will serve to make them even more determined to carry out policies which will lead to the betterment of the conditions of the people whom they represent.
The metropolitan counties are under attack because the Government believe that those Labour-controlled authorities stand as a barrier against the Government and their intentions for the future.
The people are waking up to the fact that the Government are out to remove, by laws made in this place, all opposition to the Government in every section of the community. That is why the Trade Union Bill has been

introduced. One of the Conservative Members who spoke previously gave the game away. Had all of this Government's industrial relations legislation been introduced in one Bill at the beginning of their term of office, there is no doubt as to the backlash that it would have evoked in the trade union movement and even beyond. The Government's step-by-step policies have enabled them in many cases to con workers into believing that the Bills before the House, and the Acts that have already been passed, were intended to democratise the trade union movement, as Ministers constantly say, and to hand it back to its members. Every trade unionist now knows the Government's true intention. The new clause exposes the views of the Tory party. The hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) may find that only a section of the Tory party will support him today, but I predict that at some time in the future the Government will do as he wishes on the political levy. They know that the financial base of the Labour party depends on the trade union movement—and no Labour Member should be ashamed to say so.
The trade union movement built the Labour party and our commen objectives have historically been clearly established. There is no denying the fact that the Labour party depends to a large extent on the contributions of the trade union movement, and we are proud of the relationship.
The trade unions know that their best interests are served by the existence of a strong Labour party. The Government know that if they wish to carry out their vicious attacks on the living standards of working people they must remove the first defence of the working class. The first shield of workers is the trade union movement. The Conservatives fully recognise that, and it is a great pity that it is not also recognised by some trade union leaders.
The hon. Member for Mossley Hill matches in every way the obvious hatred of the trade union movement that is seen on the Tory Benches — and the Social Democratic party is even further to the Right than the Liberal party. SDP Members who sat on the Labour Benches not long ago benefited from the contributions of the trade union movement and never objected to the advantages that they gained from that cash. The greatest hypocrisy displayed in the House has come from the alliance Benches.
As a lifelong trade union member, who has confidence in the hard core of the trade union movement, I know that the Bill will not have the effect that the Government seek. The trade union movement has been through two world wars and has sustained and developed itself and flourished in the most difficult times. That will continue and the movement will help the Labour party to destroy this Tory Government and return a Socialist Government committed to Socialist policies and the interests of the trade union movement.

Mr. Julian Amery: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) is right to the extent that there was a time when the parliamentary Labour party was the extension of the trade union movement into politics. However, after the last election, it would be absurd for anyone to pretend that that is still the case.
I do not claim that the Conservatives got a majority of the votes of trade union members, but I doubt whether


Labour got a majority, bearing in mind the trade unionists who voted Conservative, Liberal, SDP, Ulster Unionist and so on. The existing position has become an anomaly.
When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State says that he is trying to find a formula for contracting out, he is really saying that a trade union member is deemed to be a member of the Labour party unless he decides to declare otherwise. Why not say that he is deemed to be a member of the Labour party and give him a postal vote, so that he need not bother to vote at all on election day unless he decides to do so? It is time that we faced up to this anomaly.
My right hon. Friend has a difficult task. He has a difficult hand to play in his negotiations with the trade union movement, particularly at this delicate moment, and I wish him well. The last thing that I want to do is to go in for Back Bench driving, and, if he thinks that this is the right way to proceed, I should like, if I can, to help him. I appreciate that our manifesto is not clear on the matter, but in my study of history—I have studied it certainly for this century — I have found that whenever a Conservative Minister has taken refuge behind the manifesto, it has been a disaster. I would not recommend that line of defence to him.
I understand my right hon. Friend to be saying that if the trade union movement did not deliver the goods, he would reserve the Government's position. That is not good enough—when I see the attitude of many trade union leaders in the present crisis—so I have a proposition for him. If he will say tonight that if the trade union movement does not live up to its, and our, expectations by the year before the general election, he will legislate that it must be contracting in and not contracting out, I will support him tonight. If not, he must not be surprised if I do not do that—indeed, if I do the opposite. I do not think that that would do him any harm. It may even strengthen his hand with those with whom he must negotiate.

Mr. Penhaligon: One of my hobbies is to study election results. I note that at the last general election only one Member of this House succeeded in persuading half the electors in his constituency to vote for him. He was the leader of the Labour party at that time, the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot).
I compare that figure with the success of the Transport and General Workers Union in persuading 98·4 per cent. of its members to stay affiliated within the levy system. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) implied that that was a voluntary action. It seems amazing, considering that such skills are available to the Labour party and are so demonstrated throughout the land—that 98·4 per cent. of the membership of that union could be persuaded to give money to a political party—that that party does not use those skills more widely at general elections to produce more results such as that recorded in the Blaenau Gwent constituency.
It took the collective efforts of all the parties in my constituency—of the Conservative, Labour and Liberal parties, of the SDP, Ulster Unionists, Scot-Nats, Plaid Cymru and Mebyon Kernow—to persuade 72 per cent. of the electorate to vote. That was the result of our total collective effort, yet NUPE manages to persuade 97·7 per cent. of its members—to quote figures previously given by Labour Members—to make voluntary contributions to the Labour party; and the NUR, 96·6 per cent. of its members.
We know that it is a fiddle, as the hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) pointed out, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), who made what I thought was the best speech from the Opposition Benches, on as good as admitting that it was a fiddle; the Labour party needed the money, this method produced the money and therefore it was right That it should be done this way.

Mr. Winnick: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his compliments, but so that his statement is not taken as confirmed by the lack of any intervention from me I should make it clear that I in no way said that the levy was a fiddle. I confirmed that there was no evidence of difficulties in contracting out. I admitted that the system helped the Labour party, but it can in no way be described as a fiddle, for the reasons that I have given.

Mr. Penhaligon: If the hon. Gentleman ever finds himself speaking from the Dispatch Box, I hope that I shall not have to appeal to his better nature about what is right or wrong and what is a fiddle, but I will leave the matter there, as it will be on the record and people can make of it what they choose.
10.45 pm
The hon. Member for Bridlington suggested that if this provision were approved the alliance might become the alternative party to the Conservatives in Government. The argument seemed to be that if both Opposition parties were bankrupt we might stand a better chance. The Labour party need not worry, however, because the Secretary of State, his colleagues on the Front Bench, the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) and the whole Tory establishment will rally round on the same rationale as they somehow manage to apportion 18 of the 19 Supply days to the Labour party and only one to the alliance.
There is no need for Labour Members to worry, although you may have a little problem with the company you are keeping in the Lobby tonight——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that I shall not have any problems with the company that I shall be keeping tonight.

Mr. Penhaligon: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. One improvement in Members when they are elevated to the Chair is that they have more sense than to vote very often.
Labour Members have nothing to fear save the company that they may be keeping in the Lobby today. The present cosy system—this basic fiddle and utterly irrational system of financing British politics — will continue. The saddest thing of all is that some Members still believe that 98·4 per cent. of TGWU members actually want to give money to the Labour party.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Tom King): The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) referred to the company that Labour Members would be keeping in the Division and congratulated the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) on his speech. I put it to him in the kindest possible way that the first time I have ever agreed with the hon. Member for Walsall, North was when he said that the company that he would be keeping in the Lobby today would be the high-principled SDP Members who never saw any principle at all in this until they found themselves in a different


political party and, having never raised the subject throughout their political life, suddenly found it a matter of the highest political principle.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) fairly recognised that his new clause represented the alternative approach to that adopted by the Government in the Bill. I should like to explain why we chose the other approach. We are re-enacting and seeking to make work not some new, radical, arrangement but the original provisions of the 1913 Act.
The 1913 Act said two things. First, it said that people should have the right to vote in a ballot as to whether their union should have a political fund. Those of my hon. Friends who have some doubts about our position should remember that aspect of the 1913 Act because it is important to our proposals. The Act said that any political fund should be approved by a secret ballot of the members. Moreover, it said that any member who does not wish to subscribe to the union's political activities has the right not to do so. I stand four square with all my hon. Friends who have spoken in the clear belief, indeed conviction, that there is undoubtedly considerable abuse and obstruction of that right.
Some hon. Members have sought to challenge that and have asked what evidence there is. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) gave a clear illustration of how his wife had sought to exercise her right to contract out but had clearly been obstructed. My hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) quoted that well-known remark made by Gavin Laird on Channel 4. He does not come from a union that many might think was the worst offender in that respect and he is not somebody whom one might regard as one of the more likely to be the least tolerant of contracting out. He made his position clear when he said:
We make it as difficult as we can for our members to contract out.

Mr. Flannery: rose——

Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman has not been here for the whole of the debate and I seek to reply to those who have made serious points.
That is simply not acceptable to the Government. We stand by the right of people to exercise the right which was originally ascribed to them in the 1913 Act.

Mr. Flannery: rose——

Mr. King: The Bill is designed to achieve that.
Those of my hon. Friends who are concerned about the proposal will know that it received long consideration before the preparation of the manifesto. I listened with great understanding to the words of wisdom from my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery). I am not sure whether he said that to plead the manifesto was the last refuge of a scoundrel or a Conservative Minister. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington said it was not enough to give as a reason not to adopt his new clause that it was not in the manifesto. It is not because it was not in the manifesto but because in the manifesto we said something precisely different. We said something specific about an alternative approach. We put that proposition to the country and that proposition was seen and accepted by the considerable number of trade unionists to whom we owe the far more crowded Benches

behind me than I notice opposite. My right hon. Friend the Member for Pavilion said that manifestos are not very clear. A degree of clarity may be lacking in one or two aspects on different pages, but in this area the manifesto is clear and precise.
First, we said that we would restore to people their right under the 1913 Act to vote in a secret ballot on whether they wished to have a political fund. There was one error in the 1913 Act. It established that right, but the draftsmen forgot to ensure that the right could be exercised by successive generations. It is not unreasonable that that right, having been exercised by the grandfathers of present union members, should be exercised now as well. Our first, and very important, proposal is that every 10 years there will be the right for union members in unions which seek to have a political fund to vote on that political fund. That will therefore give to every generation in effect, the same right as their founding fathers had in 1913. If I may say so to my hon. Friends who are concerned about the Government's resolve in this general area, that is a very much more fundamental point, and it goes way beyond the issues of contracting in or contracting out, because, as they will appreciate, if the union is not able to carry the majority of its members, in a free and secret ballot, in the desire for a political fund, the issues of contracting in or contracting out become irrelevant, because there is no fund into which, or out of which, to contract.

Mr. Amery: Is my right hon. Friend seriously telling us that, in the case of a young man who joined a union at the age of 20, it is not until he is 30 years of age that he can exercise his vote to change the system?

Mr. King: I acknowledge that one can always argue to go further, but I think that at least my right hon. Friend would recognise that that is a substantial advance on the position of union members retiring at the age of 65 who have never had a chance in all their lives to vote in a political ballot, so I think that a periodic ballot every ten years is not unreasonable.
I wish to make clear that we entirely accept—we said this in the debate in Committee—that it is people's right, if they so choose, to have a political fund, but what we think is intolerable is for that political fund to be maintained without the opportunity for the members of the unions to have a right to vote in a ballot on whether they choose to have one. If people do so choose, under our proposals they will be well able to continue that political fund.
The second part of our package deals with the steps that the unions can take to ensure that members are freely and effectively able to decide for themselves whether or not to pay the political levy. The House will know that, in accordance with the manifesto, in which we said that we would invite the TUC to discuss with us the steps that the unions could take, I invited the TUC to come and discuss the matter with me. Members of the employment policy and organisation committee did so. We discussed the matter and, after further discussions, they subsequently produced a statement of guidance for the affiliated unions. I considered that statement of guidance. I advised them that, if that statement of guidance was adopted by the general council and issued with its full committed support, I would not propose to bring forward amendments to change the present basis of the law. I should like to give the House the reasons for having reached that conclusion.
What are the contents of the statement of guidance? The statement of guidance is issued to all the affiliated unions and contains the following key points. The guidance requires the unions to tell their members why a union has a political fund, to tell them what their political levy costs them, in cash terms and as a proportion of their normal dues, to tell them that they have the right to opt out, if they so wish, and to make clear, if they do so, that they will lose none of the other rights or benefits of members. It requires the unions to explain to their members in detail how to contract out, if that is what they want, and that information should be supplied to all new members, to all existing members after a ballot is held on the political fund, if that ballot is successful, and in addition any member at any time, if he asks for one, must be given a copy. The further content of the statement of guidance, and the framework in which the TUC issued it, with the unanimous support of the general council, is that unions are asked to review their existing procedures as soon as possible to ensure that the guidance is acted upon.
Further, unions should ensure that no obstacles are placed in the way of members wishing to contract out of the political levy, and prompt and effective procedures for exemption should operate in the union in accordance with the Trade Union Act 1913 and certification officers' model rules for political funds. It ends with the words:
The General Council strongly recommend the above practices to affiliated unions, and expect unions to ensure that their political fund arrangements operate fairly and effectively, and comply with the unions' statutory obligations under the 1913 Trade Union Act. It is particularly important that unions' procedures avoid the possibility of members being unaware of their rights in relation to the political fund, or being unable to exercise them freely.

11 pm

Mr. Tim Renton (Mid-Sussex): I have been listening with great care to what my right hon. Friend has had to say on this difficult matter. Would he consider suggesting to the TUC, in pursuit of the guidance that he has just read out, that an opting-out form should be incorporated in the membership form for every new member joining a trade union?

Mr. King: I made it clear, as does the statement, that the union members must avoid being unaware of their rights on the funds, and be able to exercise them freely. The statement requires the union to make it clear that its members do not even need a form to contract out. Under the 1913 Act, the members are required to contract out only in such form as is appropriate. Those are not the exact words, but the effect is that a form is not needed for contracting out.
What I say next is part of the answer to the concern that my hon. Friend and I share. I believe that, by the voluntary approach, this statement of guidance covers completely the circumstances that ensure that the contracting-out arrangements work effectively and that, if it is honoured, it will make a major improvement and will end much abuse. I understand that there are a number of my hon. Friends who do not believe that any voluntary arrangement is possible—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—and are not prepared to see whether it can be made to work. The Government are prepared to try to accept the statement in good faith. By it, the TUC is putting itself on trial. I say, in the phrase that has been used by other hon. Members, that I have no illusions about this. My hon. Friend the

Member for Hertford and Stortford said that there is not a good track record in these matters, and I agree with that, but this is what we told the country that we would do. We have reached a voluntary agreement with the TUC.
We have been seeking to introduce legislation to improve industrial relations. My predecessor introduced legislation that has significantly improved industrial relations, but each step has been in the teeth of determined opposition from the TUC. This is the first occasion on which we have been able to reach a voluntary agreement. We are prepared to honour it, but I have to repeat what I said in our letter confirming our acceptance to the general secretary of the TUC. I wrote to Mr. Murray in the following terms:
I must, of course, make it clear that the Government's decision not to proceed with such changes in the present Bill would rest on the firm expectation that the TUC's action will in practice be effective. If it were not to prove effective then the Government must, of course, reserve its right to legislate to ensure that union members are fully aware of the choice they have and are readily able to exercise that choice.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I fully understand and endorse my right hon. Friend's desire to arrive at a voluntary agreement with the trade unions. That would be desirable. I share with many of my hon. Friends a profound belief that this measure will not work and that the trade union movement will continue to coerce its membership. I do not, however, ask my right hon. Friend, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery), to give a commitment to legislate for contracting in. That would be asking too much. It would mean asking my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to project into the future. I ask my right hon. Friend to give a commitment to legislate further if this agreement breaks down and to consider the possibility of contracting in.

Mr. King: The last sentence in the manifesto on the political levy — I paid great attention to an earlier sentence, so I pay equal attention to the next—refers to the steps that the trade unions are able and willing to take. I make it clear:
In the event that the trade unions are not willing to take such steps, the Government will be prepared to introduce measures to guarantee a free and effective right of choice.
[HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] I am grateful to my hon. Friends who shouted, "When?" When an hon. Member raised that point earlier, an hon. Member shouted, "How long will you give them?" Another hon. Member shouted, "Midnight", and the next contribution was, "Two years." That brackets the area effectively.
The unions have entered the agreement with the full commitment of the TUC general council, and we expect it to be honoured. The Government will honour their part of the bargain. I say clearly and seriously to the union leaders involved, "Now it is up to you." The Government are determined that the people will get their rights under the 1913 Act. I am satisfied that that can be achieved under this voluntary agreement, if it is genuinely implemented. Of course, the agreement can be frustrated, and those who remember the history of these matters know that only too clearly. If the agreement is frustrated, let there be no doubt that the Government will not sit back. We will honour our undertaking to introduce measures such as those to which I have referred.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I am grateful for those especially strong words. Will my right hon. Friend accept that a time bracket of midnight


and two years is not quite good enough? Will he spell out—I believe he wants to—that, if a union fails to honour this undertaking, he will not wait for seven or eight pieces of evidence but will move swiftly and will persuade his right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary and the business managers to find time for immediate legislation?

Mr. King: My hon. Friend is right to pick me up on a remark that did not go to the heart of what I was trying to say. I shall not tonight give a specific time from the Dispatch Box. We are prepared to deal fairly with this matter. We shall allow the trade unions to make their proper arrangements. We shall be watching the position very closely. I certainly expect to have, significantly short of what I call the far end of the time bracket, clear evidence that the measure is operating effectively. I give that clear assurance to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Is the undertaking that my right hon. Friend is expecting from the unions any more than play acting and a charade? Does he honestly expect the unions and the TUC, which is not obliging the National Union of Mineworkers to obey the law, to obey a mere guideline?

Mr. King: I am spelling out, I hope without lack of clarity, as I have spelt out at other meetings, the Government's clear position on this matter. There are other audiences that are aware of the Government's position on this matter. It is up to them to be willing and determined to make the 1913 Act work and to ensure people's rights. If they are not, they must be prepared to face the consequences. I explained to my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) the kind of time scale in which that might operate.
I cannot go any further tonight in saying what steps might be appropriate. My hon. Friend asked for a specific undertaking about the form that those measures might take. I will say, as we did in the manifesto, that we will ensure that people have a free and effective right of choice.
If we find that the voluntary arrangement is not working satisfactorily, the need to take further steps to ensure that trade unionists can exercise their rights will be further reinforced by the fact that we have offered a voluntary agreement. We will therefore be that much more entitled to take those further steps.
I know that a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends are worried by what they believe to be the inadequacy of the contracting-out procedure. There is a point which did not arise under the 1913 Act but which arises with the more modern practice of check-off. The point was covered in our Green Paper. If someone contracts out and has properly informed his employer that he has contracted out, there is nothing to prevent the employer continuing to make the deductions for the political funds, and all that the member who has contracted out can do is to seek to recover the contribution from the trade union. That may be what my hon. Friends the Members for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) and for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) have in mind. I believe that we are to have a debate on that matter next and I hope to say something helpful about it.

Mr. John Townend: Will my right hon. Friend spell out for the benefit of the House the criteria that he will use in deciding whether his voluntary agreement has been

effective? Does he expect every union to comply, and if one or two do not, will he legislate? Does he expect the number contracting out to rise significantly?

Mr. King: I should be staggered if the free and efffective right of choice resulted in anything approaching the figures that the hon. Member for Truro and others have quoted. If 98·7 per cent. of the members of the Transport and General Workers Union genuinely wish to subscribe to the Labour party, good luck to them. Our criteria will be that we are satisfied that people are aware of their rights and have a free and fair opportunity to exercise them. It will be a matter of judgment and I cannot specify what would constitute a satisfactory outcome. We will approach the matter in the fairest way that we can, because we are determined under the Bill to see that people enjoy their rights.

Mr. Flannery: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. King: I have given way several times, and I do not propose to do so again.
I have sought to set out to the House the Government's position. We attach great importance to the achievement of the voluntary agreement. I hope that, having listened to my arguments and the explanation of the Government's position, my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington will be willing not to press his new clause. However, if he feels obliged to do so, I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will join me in rejecting it and showing that the Conservative party and the Conservative Government stand ready to defend the rights of individual members as set out under the 1913 Act, to work with the trade union movement on a voluntary agreement where that proves possible, and to give the trade union movement the opportunity to respond to the agreement that we offer it.

Mr. John Smith: I can be much briefer than the Secretary of State was as, with no disrespect to him, my task is a little less complicated than that which he has just performed.
The hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) should at least be given credit for being frank. He did not hide behind a lot of the rhetoric about individual rights that other Conservative Members indulged in. In his closing remarks he came very much to the point when he made it quite clear that he believed that his new clause was designed to postpone the day when a Labour Government would be elected. Of course, when he said that, we understood in a flash why the Liberal and Social Democratic parties supported it. They wish to inherit the vacancy promoted by the hon. Gentleman. Although the way in which he moved his new clause would not win any prizes for persuasion, he should at least be given some credit for frankness on that account.
It has been a recurring theme of Conservative Members that there has been some abuse of the contracting-out system. However, I refer them to the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) and to the Donovan commission, which looked into this matter carefully. Lord Can, who was then a Conservative Member of Parliament — and who still supports that party—gave evidence to the Donovan commission. He alleged that it was difficult for trade union members to contract out. The commission asked him to provide evidence to back up that allegation. It said:


We asked Mr. Carr whether he had specific instances in mind, and if so whether he would prepared to give details to the Royal Commission, if necessary in confidence. In a courteous reply, he made it clear that he was not basing his remarks on detailed examples but was speaking in general terms. He thought, however, that he might be able to supply details of specific cases if given the time—an expectation appararently not fulfilled.
Whenever that allegation has been followed up, there has been a signal absence of specific evidence. That is the case again today, and it was notably true of the speech of the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells), who was concerned that his wife had some difficulty in not being able to contract out of ASTMS. She must be singularly incapable, because 70 per cent. of the membership of that union somehow manages to contract out. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman should have a word with his wife and tell her to ask the 70 per cent. how that difficult task is undertaken.

Mr. Bowen Wells: I find it offensive that the right hon. and learned Member should take my wife to task. However, my point was that ASTMS did not make it easy to contract out. Indeed, under the influence of the Labour Government it eliminated the box on the form. The fact that 70 per cent. nevertheless managed to contract out reflects no credit on ASTMS.

Mr. Smith: I do not want to cause the hon. Gentleman any difficulty with his wife. He brought her into the debate.
The hon. Gentleman cannot pretend that a great conspiracy is afoot in ASTMS to deny members their rights under the 1913 Act — rights which, as the Secretary of State reminded us, they have had for 70 years —when 70 per cent. of the members somehow manage to contract out. The vast majority of ASTMS members do not wish to contribute to the political levy, and clearly they are given the opportunity to contract out. I know that ASTMS has been the subject of a campaign by the CTU and other bodies for some time. Perhaps that campaign has contributed to the fact that 70 per cent. have contracted out. But ASTMS is one example, and, just as in some of the larger manual workers' unions a large number of members pay the political levy, so there are other unions such as ACTT in which over 90 per cent. contract out. As the Donovan commission noted, this is more a political question than a question of industrial relations.
The Donovan commission's report is the most recent objective account of the matter. It was not based on anecdotal evidence or political prejudice; and it went fully into the whole matter. The conclusion of the report was that
the problem of 'contracting-in' or 'contracting-out' is not so much a question of industrial relations as a political question, namely whether the Labour Party shall get the benefit of this reluctance"—
by "reluctance" the authors of the report meant the inertia about contracting out—
or not.
It continued:
Parliament in 1913 enacted provisions (which were restored in 1946) in favour of members of trade unions who object to paying a political levy, enabling them to 'contract out' if they wished, and we have no evidence that these are ineffective, and that the protection conferred by the Act of 1913 is illusory. In the circumstances, we do not recommend any change.
It also said that there was a long period between 1961 and 1964 during which political opportunities existed for a

change to be made, and no such change was made. That was the conclusion of an objective body, not based on the political prejudice which has been amply evident today.

Mr. Renton: The right hon. and learned Gentleman makes much of the fact that in his judgment there are no difficulties in contracting out. Has he read the September issue of Marxism Today? [Interruption.] I shall lend the hon. Gentleman my copy. It contains a round table discussion by a number of national union officers, including Jack Dromey, public services national officer of the Transport and General Workers Union, who says:
We must knock on the head this nonsense where we say that members have that right"—
the right to contract out—
but we make it difficult for them: they have to go to the third tree on the left of Hyde Park on February 29 and there they might find a contracting-out form.
Is that not the fact of the matter?

Mr. Smith: I have not had the benefit of reading that article in full. My weekend reading is different from that of the hon. Gentleman. I am not prepared to comment on the words that he has quoted without seeing them in their context, and seeing whether what he says is true. If the hon. Gentleman is prepared to find Mr. Dromey so persuasive on this subject, is he prepared to agree with him on other subjects too? Has there ever been another occasion on which the hon. Gentleman has been able to quote from Marxism Today with anything approaching approval? He should be careful where he finds his political friends and his political comfort.
The new clause is offensive. It is particularly offensive because of the hypocritical double standards contained in it. The hon. Member for Bridlington half understood this point when he moved the new clause. He was prompted by an intervention to say that he saw some point in having some controls over contributions by companies to the Conservative party or other political institutions——

Mr. Bendall: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Smith: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to develop this point. We know that the Social Democratic party and other parties sometimes benefit from company contributions too. The hon. Member for Bridlington was signally careful not to specify what controls he had in mind. There was a time when we had a Companies Bill almost every year for years and I do not recollect any Conservative Member voting for any restrictions on company contributions that were proposed. My hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) advanced such propositions in Committee and in the House several times and he has often been upbraided by Conservative Members for raising such a delicate issue. The hon. Gentleman would have a proper background on this issue if he had advocated restrictions on company contributions when he did not have to create the appearance of political symmetry to advance, with some persuasion, new clause 5. I have not checked the hon. Gentleman's record, but I know that he has not voted for, and it is likely that he has voted against, introducing controls on company contributions.
We know that among free and independent organisations trade unions are uniquely controlled and circumscribed by the law with regard to their political contributions. Until the Osborne judgment of 1910, trade


unions were as free as other organisations to spend their money as they thought fit and, in their judgment, in the best interests of their members. Companies have always been able to do that, but the 1913 Act put trade unions under special circumscription and control. First, they must keep their political funds quite separate from the general one. They must then get approval for the political fund from their mass membership and they must give the individual the right to contract out.
A shareholder, member, customer or employee of any British company does not have any say in any political contribution that the company makes. Why? Because of the sense of individual rights that is so deeply embedded in the Conservative party. Is there no concern for the right of the individual shareholder, or for him to be consulted and allowed to contract out, never mind contract in? Why do we not have a ballot of the members of the company to decide whether there should be a political fund? Why do they not have a right to contract out? Why, if we have such concern for political fairness and individual liberty, does the rich party get its sources fully protected while the poor party has, for 70 years, been circumscribed by the law? Instead of putting companies on the same footing as trade unions, the hon. Gentleman does nothing about companies but tries to move even more heavily and penally against the trade union movement.

Sir William Clark: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain how trade unions get a block vote if not because of the amount of money that they pay to the Labour party?

Mr. Smith: I forgive the hon. Gentleman for not knowing too much about the constitution of the Labour party, but even random observation might have taught him that he is talking about a completely different matter. The Labour party and the trade unions decide how they cast votes at conference. We need no education from a party that does not believe in having any votes of any type at conference. It is well known that the Conservative party gets an enormous amount of money from private sector industry.

Mr. Robert Atkins: Why does the right hon. and learned Gentleman keep advancing the theory that the Conservative party gets so much money from business when it is known that 85 per cent. of the money that keeps it running comes, unlike the Labour party, from private contributions?

Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman has given me slightly different information from that given by one of his hon. Friends, who said that only 20 per cent. of contributions comes from corporate donations. If that is so, the Conservatives have more funds than I thought. The time has come for the Conservative party to publish proper accounts.
11.30 pm
One of the reasons why Conservative Members quote how much a trade union contributes to the Labour party or to the political fund is that all the figures are published in the annual report of the certification officer. Every union shows to the last penny the amount of money paid in its political levy and the percentage of the members. It is there in massive detail. What do we get from the

Conservative party in its annual accounts? Money in, money out, and no identification whatsoever of where it comes from. If the Conservative party was a limited company and had to publish accounts under the Companies Acts, there is not an auditor out of gaol in this country who could sign the auditor's report—and this is the party that talks about fairness, individual rights and political morality.
The Secretary of State, in his careful and complicated speech, did no more than fulfil the undertaking that he gave to the TUC, which I am sure he meant, that as a result of the statement of guidance that was agreed he would not table amendments to change the present basis of the law regarding the payment of the political levy. The right hon. Gentleman could not have avoided his attitude in his speech, because on that occasion the Government gave a clear commitment to the TUC, which it expects them to uphold. I am sure that the Government will do so. However, in rejecting the new clause proposed by the hon. Member for Bridlington let it not be said that the Opposition had to go through the same careful manoeuvring as the Secretary of State.

Mr. A. J. Beith: The right hon. Gentleman will go through the same Lobby as the Secretary of State.

Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman should be careful with his guilt-by-association technique. He will go through the Lobby with some strange allies. He will be going through the Lobby with people who make the Monday Club look like a sodden regiment. He will also go through the same Lobby as members of the Social Democratic party who, when in the Labour party, were sponsored by trade unions, but as soon as they left the Labour party they decided that it was all wrong in principle. From time to time we all find ourselves in the Lobby with people with whom we would not have chosen to be there. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) will have a bigger struggle with his conscience tonight than I shall.
I do not have to make as complicated a speech as the Secretary of State did. We in the Opposition can afford to say clearly that what is wrong with new clause 5 is that it is hypocritical, unfair and party political biased.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 57, Noes 472.

Division No. 218]
[11.34 pm


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Alton, David
Hind, Kenneth


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Ashdown, Paddy
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Beith, A. J.
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Howells, Geraint


Brinton, Tim
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)


Bruinvels, Peter
Jones, Robert (W Herts)


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Kennedy, Charles


Cartwright, John
Kirkwood, Archibald


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Lawrence, Ivan


Cockeram, Eric
Maclennan, Robert


Dover, Den
Meadowcroft, Michael


Fallon, Michael
Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)


Freud, Clement
Murphy, Christopher


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Neale, Gerrard


Gorst, John
Penhaligon, David


Ground, Patrick
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Proctor, K. Harvey


Hannam, John
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Hawksley, Warren
Rossi, Sir Hugh






Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Wallace, James


Stanbrook, Ivor
Wiggin, Jerry


Steel, Rt Hon David
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Steen, Anthony
Winterton, Nicholas


Taylor, Rt Hon John David



Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Terlezki, Stefan
Mr. John Townend and Mr. Vivian Bendall.


Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)



Walden, George





NOES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Chalker, Mrs Lynda


Adley, Robert
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Alexander, Richard
Chapman, Sydney


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Chope, Christopher


Amess, David
Churchill, W. S.


Ancram, Michael
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)


Anderson, Donald
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Arnold, Tom
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Ashby, David
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Ashton, Joe
Clarke, Thomas


Aspinwall, Jack
Clay, Robert


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Clegg, Sir Walter


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Cohen, Harry


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Coleman, Donald


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Colvin, Michael


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Conlan, Bernard


Baldry, Anthony
Cook, Frank (Stockton North)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Coombs, Simon


Barnett, Guy
Cope, John


Barron, Kevin
Corbett, Robin


Batiste, Spencer
Corbyn, Jeremy


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Cormack, Patrick


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Corrie, John


Bell, Stuart
Couchman, James


Benn, Tony
Cowans, Harry


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Craigen, J. M.


Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)
Cranborne, Viscount


Benyon, William
Critchley, Julian


Bermingham, Gerald
Crouch, David


Berry, Sir Anthony
Crowther, Stan


Bevan, David Gilroy
Cunningham, Dr John


Bidwell, Sydney
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)


Blair, Anthony
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Deakins, Eric


Body, Richard
Dixon, Donald


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Dobson, Frank


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Dormand, Jack


Bottomley, Peter
Dorrell, Stephen


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Douglas, Dick


Boyes, Roland
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Dubs, Alfred


Braine, Sir Bernard
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Duffy, A. E. P.


Bright, Graham
Dunn, Robert


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Brooke, Hon Peter
Durant, Tony


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Dykes, Hugh


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Eadie, Alex


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Eastham, Ken


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Eggar, Tim


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Evans, John (St. Helens N)


Buck, Sir Antony
Evennett, David


Budgen, Nick
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Burt, Alistair
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Butcher, John
Farr, John


Caborn, Richard
Fatchett, Derek


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Faulds, Andrew


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Favell, Anthony


Campbell, Ian
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Canavan, Dennis
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Fisher, Mark





Flannery, Martin
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Fletcher, Alexander
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Hunter, Andrew


Forman, Nigel
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Forth, Eric
Irving, Charles


Foster, Derek
Jackson, Robert


Foulkes, George
Janner, Hon Greville


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Fox, Marcus
Jessel, Toby


Franks, Cecil
John, Brynmor


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Freeman, Roger
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Fry, Peter
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Gale, Roger
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Galley, Roy
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Key, Robert


Garrett, W. E.
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


George, Bruce
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
King, Rt Hon Tom


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Glyn, Dr Alan
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)


Godman, Dr Norman
Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)


Golding, John
Knowles, Michael


Goodlad, Alastair
Knox, David


Gould, Bryan
Lambie, David


Gow, Ian
Lamont, Norman


Gower, Sir Raymond
Lawler, Geoffrey


Grant, Sir Anthony
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Gregory, Conal
Leadbitter, Ted


Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)
Lee, John (Pendle)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Leighton, Ronald


Grist, Ian
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Gummer, John Selwyn
Lester, Jim


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Lightbown, David


Hanley, Jeremy
Lilley, Peter


Hardy, Peter
Litherland, Robert


Harman, Ms Harriet
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Harris, David
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Lord, Michael


Haselhurst, Alan
Loyden, Edward


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Lyell, Nicholas


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
McCartney, Hugh


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
McCrindle, Robert


Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Hayes, J.
Macfarlane, Neil


Hayhoe, Barney
MacGregor, John


Haynes, Frank
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Hayward, Robert
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
McKelvey, William


Heddle, John
Maclean, David John


Heffer, Eric S.
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Henderson, Barry
McNamara, Kevin


Hickmet, Richard
McTaggart, Robert


Hicks, Robert
McWilliam, John


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Madden, Max


Hill, James
Madel, David


Hirst, Michael
Major, John


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Malins, Humfrey


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Malone, Gerald


Holt, Richard
Maples, John


Home Robertson, John
Marek, Dr John


Hooson, Tom
Marland, Paul


Hordern, Peter
Marlow, Antony


Howard, Michael
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Martin, Michael


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)
Mates, Michael


Howell, Rt Hon D; (S'heath)
Mather, Carol


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Maude, Hon Francis


Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Mayhew, Sir Patrick






Meacher, Michael
Ryder, Richard


Mellor, David
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Merchant, Piers
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Meyer, Sir Anthony
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


Michie, William
Sayeed, Jonathan


Mikardo, Ian
Scott, Nicholas


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Sedgemore, Brian


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Sheerman, Barry


Miscampbell, Norman
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Moate, Roger
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Montgomery, Fergus
Shersby, Michael


Moore, John
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Short, Mrs R. (W'hampt'n NE)


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Silvester, Fred


Moynihan, Hon C.
Sims, Roger


Mudd, David
Skeet, T. H. H.


Nellist, David
Skinner, Dennis


Nelson, Anthony
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Neubert, Michael
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


Newton, Tony
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Nicholls, Patrick
Snape, Peter


Normanton, Tom
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Norris, Steven
Spearing, Nigel


O'Brien, William
Speed, Keith


O'Neill, Martin
Spencer, Derek


Onslow, Cranley
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Oppenheim, Philip
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Squire, Robin


Ottaway, Richard
Stanley, John


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Stern, Michael


Parris, Matthew
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Parry, Robert
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Patchett, Terry
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Patten, John (Oxford)
Stewart, lan (N Hertf'dshire)


Pavitt, Laurie
Stott, Roger


Pawsey, James
Stradling Thomas, J.


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Strang, Gavin


Pendry, Tom
Straw, Jack


Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Pike, Peter
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Pink, R. Bonner
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Pollock, Alexander
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Powell, William (Corby)
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Powley, John
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Prescott, John
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Price, Sir David
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Radice, Giles
Thornton, Malcolm


Raffan, Keith
Tinn, James


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Torney, Tom


Randall, Stuart
Tracey, Richard


Rathbone, Tim
Trippier, David


Redmond, M.
Trotter, Neville


Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Renton, Tim
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Rhodes James, Robert
Viggers, Peter


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Waddington, David


Richardson, Ms Jo
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Rifkind, Malcolm
Waldegrave, Hon William


Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Wall, Sir Patrick


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Waller, Gary


Robertson, George
Walters, Dennis


Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Ward, John


Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Roe, Mrs Marion
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Rogers, Allan
Wareing, Robert


Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)
Warren, Kenneth


Rost, Peter
Watson, John


Rowe, Andrew
Watts, John


Rowlands, Ted
Weetch, Ken


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Welsh, Michael





Wheeler, John
Woodall, Alec


White, James
Woodcock, Michael


Whitney, Raymond
Yeo, Tim


Wigley, Dafydd
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Wilkinson, John
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Williams, Rt Hon A.



Winnick, David
Tellers for the Noes:


Wolfson, Mark
Mr. Robert Boscawen and Mr. Ian Lang.


Wood, Timothy

Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 6

COLLECTION OF POLITICAL LEVY

`Where a trade union has established a political fund in accordance with the provisions of the Trade Union Act 1913 as amended ("the 1913 Act") and in accordance with the provisions of this Act, it shall be unlawful for an employer (or other person acting on his behalf) to make deductions from the wages, salary or other remuneration paid to a member of that trade union in respect of such contributions'.—[Mr. George Gardiner.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. George Gardiner: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, we may take the following amendments to the proposed new clause:

Amendment (a), at end add
'unless he has first received a signed declaration from the employee requiring him to make such a deduction'.

Amendment (b), at end add
'when that trade union member has signified, in writing, that he or she does not wish to pay the political levy.'.

We may also take new clause 10—Deduction of levy by employer—
'The following subsection shall be inserted in subsection (3) of Section 5 of the Trade Union Act 1913—
(3) Where there is an arrangement between an employer and a trade union for an employee's trade union contributions, including the political contribution, to be deducted from his salary or wages, that employer must obtain the permission of the trade union member for the deduction of the political levy. The trade union may not request the deduction of the levy from trade unionists who have signified they do not want to pay it.".'.

Mr. Gardiner: We are here concerned with the collection of the political levy. When we were debating the previous new clause, frequent accusations were made by Opposition Members to the effect that we on these Benches were adopting a particularly vindictive and critical attitude and that in advancing our arguments we were motivated by some feelings of spite or excessive criticism towards trade unions and their practices.
I wish at the outset to assure Opposition Members that I shall be critical not only of certain union practices but of the practices resorted to by some employers. Perhaps I should explain initially the background to the new clause. It concerns the system by which employers frequently reach agreements with trade unions to make a check-off from employees' pay packets at source. This check-off covers not only trade union dues but whatever political levy has been agreed within the trade union.
We find objectionable the practice of a number of employers, particularly large ones, and in the public sector, who refuse to distinguish when making this checkoff between those of their employees who have contracted out of paying the political levy and those who have not. Therefore, we have the scandalous situation in which it is possible for an employee and a member of a trade union


to exercise his right to contract out and yet find himself powerless to stop his employer from deducting the political levy from his earnings at source. The principle aim we had in mind when we drafted the new clause was to end that scandalous situation.
When we debated the last new clause, Opposition Members claimed that there was no evidence that difficulties were placed in the way of trade union members in exercising their right to contract out. Lest that charge be made against this new clause, I shall refer to a few classic cases that illustrate the malpractice to which I refer.
There was the case of Mr. Jack Cleminson, the son of a Durham miner and a member of the POEU, who opted out of the political levy to the Labour party every year but who nevertheless found the Post Office consistently deducting it from his pay. When he referred to his local union officials, they told him to claim the money back from union headquarters. Eventually Mr. Cleminson managed to get his money back, 12 years after he had begun to pay it.
There was the case of Mr. Douglas Reeves, a member of the Transport and General Workers Union, who was an aircraft loading supervisor at London airport. He had the political levy deducted from his pay by British Airways for several years, despite his decision to opt out of paying it, and when he asked his employers if supporting the Labour party was a condition of employment, they told him to ask his shop steward.
Another more recent case was that of Miss A. Elliott, a member of SOGAT who worked for the Bowater Scott Corporation. She, too, found that, although she had contracted out, the political levy was consistently deducted from her wages under arrangements made between the union and the employer. Only after she had taken the case to the certification officer was the situation remedied.
More recently still, in the latter part of last year, employees of certain local authorities discovered that whether or not they contracted out of the levy the employers insisted on deducting it at source.
That is the scandal that we had in mind in framing the new clause. We wished to ensure that no union member who contracted out of the levy would find the decision effectively negated by a deal reached between the trade union and the employer.
The scandal goes still further. It takes an especially dedicated trade union member and employee to go to all the trouble of fighting both employer and union to get back money that should never have been deducted. Indeed, there is little incentive for trade union members to exercise the right to opt out in the first place if they know that the levy will still be deducted from their pay packets.
Although that was our main objective, the new clause as drafted would prohibit all deduction of political levy at source by employers, which goes considerably further than would he required to meet the cases that I have described. We drafted the clause more broadly because over the years a number of employers have argued that with very large work forces and payrolls it is difficult to distinguish between those paying full union dues plus political levy and those paying union dues but not wishing to pay the political levy. To relieve them of that task of differentiation we decided to frame the new clause in such a way as to relieve them of the task of deducting the political levy altogether. Many also asked why employers should effectively act as agents or collectors of funds for

the Labour party without even charging the unions for the service provided. Nevertheless, our primary objective was to end the scandal of union members opting out of the levy but having it deducted from their pay packets all the same.
Amendment (b) in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) and other colleagues seeks to narrow the impact of the new clause to deal with the scandalous cases that I have described. In view of our prime objective in drafting the new clause, I find that amendment entirely acceptable. I therefore ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State either to accept the new clause with amendment (b) or to accept the spirit of it and to take appropriate action to fulfil it in another place.
Beyond all that, the iniquitous practices to which I have dawn attention are contrary to our manifesto commitment and, indeed, the Secretary of State's commitment since to ensure a free and effective choice for union members over payment of the political levy. This practice should be eradicated at the earliest opportunity so that never again can a large employer and a trade union effectively connive to rob an individual worker of his or her rights.

12 midnight

Mr. John Golding: May I declare an interest? [HON. MEMBERS: "Do not be too long".] I shall speak for as long as it takes me to make my point.
This is a vicious act. The fact that it is being taken late at night is the fault not of the Opposition but of those who want to bulldoze the legislation through the House.
I have been the political officer of the Post Office Engineering Union since the middle 1960s. I object strongly to the language that was used by the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner). There has been no agreement between what was the Post Office and is now British Telecom and the Post Office and the Post Office Engineering Union. On all occasions the advice from the union's head office to branches has been to facilitate the withdrawal of those who do not want to pay the political levy. That has always been the advice.
Over the years the POEU has dealt with millions in the trade union movement. Conservative Members produce five or six cases of bad administration and try to generalise and make a general principle. If we were to look at the conduct of companies and draw the attention of the House to the number of malpractices which take place on the boards of directors and among senior managers and then draw general conclusions for British industry, Conservative Members would be irate. They would say that such examples were not typical but were failures in a system that was otherwise fair.
The POEU does not collect its political levy for the Labour party. The POEU, when it conducted its ballot successfully in the middle 1960s, argued forcefully for a political fund because it wanted political representation. The members wanted the union's voice to be heard in the House on subjects such as pay, the future of telecommunications, and health and safety. That was why the political contribution was raised and why there was a ballot. The Labour party is the means by which the union obtained political representation. The primary point is to have that political representation.
Is it wrong for the union and workers to be represented by the Labour party when, through individual after individual on the Tory Benches, big business is


represented? Is it wrong for the worker's voice to be heard from the Labour Benches when the directors speak day in and day out from the Conservative Benches? Those who speak for the City, for big business, for commerce, even those who speak for the small shopkeeper, want to continue to speak in the House for their special interests, but they want to deny those who speak for workers the right and the ease to speak from the Labour Benches.
That is what the legislation is about. It is about crippling the trade union movement. The political funds of the unions are small compared with what they ought to be. I have not understood in my time as a political officer how many people contract out. The figures of those who contract out—those who have found no difficulties of the kind about which Conservative Members have told us —illustrate that thousands find it simple enough to fill in a form and to submit it to their head office. Thousands upon thousands are able to do that. They are wrong to do it, because, by so doing, they reduce the effectiveness of their union, but at least they are able to do it, and they do it effectively.
This clause is a wrecking clause, and the hon. Member for Reigate knows it. A few years ago, Governments, both Conservative and Labour, employers and trade unions decided that it would be in the interests of industrial efficiency, and in the interests of the trade union movement, if union contributions could be deducted from wages at source. The check-off system was introduced to facilitate industrial relations and to assist the orderly conduct of trade union business. When the check-off system was introduced, the collecting system of the unions was dismantled. Conservative Members have sought to introduce a system whereby employers cannot deduct the political contribution at source. It would place an intolerable burden upon trade unions to create a collecting system for that part of the contribution which is allocated to the political fund. It is an attempt to wreck and to take away the political fund from the unions. This has to be resisted, and it has to be fought.
For trade unionists, so much is determined in the House. Wages in the public sector have been determined more in Whitehall than in negotiations between employers and trade unions for many years past. For trade unions in the public sector, representation in Parliament is essential. It is as essential as having bargainers to go and talk to management. For those who are interested in health and safety, it is not the negotiations with employers that are important; it is the fight for the health and safety legislation that has taken place in the House.
I could speak at greater length on the virtues of political parliamentary representation in the House for working people. I will not do so. I know that we are in Parliament to speak for working people, and that we are here to make certain that the aims and the aspirations of the trade unions are heard. Conservative Members do not understand these aspirations. They cannot understand what it is to speak for working people. I would waste my voice to try to explain to them the importance of worker representation. All that I know is that one has only to look at the volume of the declaration of interests to know that Conservative Members are always speaking for a vested interest. The difference between their vested interest and ours is that

they speak for individuals, for capital and wealth, while we speak for the good of the working people, and we shall continue to do that.

Mr. Martin Stevens: I am venturing to intrude into this debate from the majestic platform of three years as president of the Greater London trade unionists.

Mr. Ernie Ross: How many of them are there?

Mr. Stevens: More than the hon. Gentleman would think.
I was interested in what the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) was saying, as it implied that my right hon. and hon. Friends do not want to see the voice of the working man represented in the House, although the voice of the working man is not the exclusive property of Labour Members. I wish that there were more genuine representatives of the working man on the Labour Benches—we rather liked the old-fashioned Member of that type and regret his passing.
I rejoice in the success of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in obtaining undertakings from the general council of the TUC on contracting in and contracting out. The principle that we are discussing with the new clause and its amendments is based on the same theories. I am interested to see that whereas the Liberal-SDP alliance has tabled an amendment that requires trade unionists to contract in, the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) and others requires them to contract out. In other words, it is the more magnanimous of the two amendments, and the late Mr. Stanley Baldwin, a great man, would have approved of it.
If the British people have a single, recognisable characteristic that distinguishes them from others, it is their sense of fairness. It is right that the people of our country, be they trade unionists or not, should hear that voice come from this House as the voice of fairness. Incidentally, Labour Members who have been trimming the pants off major companies might like to give them a pat on the back for collaborating in the collection of union dues, which we are now discussing. There should be no difficulty, in accordance with amendment (b), which I and Conservative trade unionists support, in these days of the computer, in deleting from the subtractions from earnings the political fund for those who have said in writing that they do not wish to pay it. It is no longer reasonable to say that it is too difficult for major employers not to deduct the levy in the case of those who do not want to subscribe to it.
I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will reflect the overwhelming majority of fair—minded hon. Members in the Division that has just concluded by accepting the principle on deductions by employers. That practice suits everyone. I do not question the good faith of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme in saying what a nuisance it would be for everyone if the practice ceased. We should support the continuation of that practice with the proviso that those who do not wish to pay the levy can opt out.

Mr. Ernie Roberts: The hon. Gentleman may know that, for a considerable number of years, I was the political officer


for a million political levy-paying members of the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers. One could count on two hands the number of complaints we received. Those who wanted to contract out had no difficulty in not paying the political levy to the union. Not one of those million members had the right to contract out of paying the political levy to the Tory party for purchases needed.

Mr. Stevens: That was an interesting intervention, but I do not entirely understand its relevance to the points that I and my hon. Friends are trying to make. It may have been difficult 10, 20 or 30 years ago to distinguish between employees who wished to pay the political levy and those who did not, but it is not difficult any more. It is simple and fair. I and my hon. Friends commend amendment (b) to the House.

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): I have been present in the Chamber throughout the debate, except for one short interval. I have been struck by the way in which the Labour Members have continued to assume that they have a God-given right to rush to the support of every trade unionist and to have it made as easy as possible for them to collect large sums of money from trade union members. In the real world, that certainty is cracking. Labour Members are extremely anxious about where the political loyalties of trade union members lie. They are equally worried, therefore, about possible sources of income. Throughout the debate, both in the Chamber and in Standing Committee, Labour Members have claimed that the purchase of votes in the Labour party councils is no concern of the people interested in this legislation. That aspect is, however, part and parcel of the whole debate.
Labour Members who claim that companies are contributing to the Conservative party pay no heed to the fact that no company, no matter how large its contribution, can buy political influence within the Conservative party by that mechanism. The purchase of political power is an integral part of the Labour party's constitution.
It is greatly to be preferred that we should advance as far as possible along the path of consensus in this matter. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has created an agreement on the political levy with the Trades Union Congress. That agreement is yet another necessary attempt to obtain the type of partnership between trade unions and the Government without which the country would continue to be divided, and eventually it would be brought down. Similarly, I believe that it is reasonable for trade union members to negotiate with their employers the right to have their subscriptions collected at source. I also believe in the spirit of new clause 6—that it is entirely wrong for employers nowadays to continue to deduct the political levy when an employee has signified his wish not to have it deducted. I shall support the new clause.
The lasting impression with which the debate has left me is that the Labour party feels thoroughly, and rightly, alarmed that its grip on the trade union movement has finally begun to shift. I believe that it has shifted irreversibly. I believe that that has nothing to do with the trade union legislation; it has to do with the realisation that, contrary to what Opposition Members continue to assert, trade union members are realising in increasing numbers that they are better represented by parties other than the party which claims so stridently to represent the working man but whose policies consistently sell him short.

Mr. Renton: I should like to speak in support of amendment (b) to the new clause which stands in my name and the names of my hon. Friends. I was surprised that the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding), in one of his shorter but passionate speeches, felt that new clause 6 and the amendment to which I am now speaking were likely to wreck the trade union movement.

Mr. Golding: rose——

Mr. Renton: No, it is my turn.

Mr. Golding: rose——

Mr. Renton: No, I shall not give way.

Mr. Golding: rose——

Mr. Renton: No, I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. I am surprised that he should be so wrought up by this modest new clause. Is he that frightened——

Mr. Golding: Is the hon. Gentleman asking me a question?

Mr. Renton: Is the hon. Gentleman so frightened or such a stranger to the trade union movement? We are suggesting something that does not hit or hurt the trade unions. It is an inhibition and restraint on employers. We are saying that, when a trade unionist has signified to his employer—I add the words "in writing"—that he does not wish to pay the political levy, the employer should not be entitled to continue deducting it. What is wrong with that? Why does not the hon. Gentleman, who has been a vociferous supporter——

Mr. Golding: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It would help if the hon. Member did not persist in asking questions of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding).

Mr. Renton: Thank you for your protection, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall finish this long question and then I shall give way to the hon. Member. With ad his experience of supporting workers in the Post Office Engineering Union, he knows that there have been instances when the Post Office has been told by individuals, like Jack Cleminson, who have paid the political levy that they want to opt out of it. However, the levy was deducted from him for 12 years. Why will not the hon. Gentleman support an amendment that will stop that by preventing employers from carrying on that practice in future?

Mr. Golding: If the hon. Gentleman reads Hansard he will see what I said. I was talking about the new clause. I referred to it as a wrecking clause. If the hon. Gentleman is asking me to speak on amendment (b), I will happily do so. I did not do so in my original speech. It is important, from the point of view of keeping union records and keeping the books straight, that the union—I accept the agreement that the Secretary of State has reached with the TUC, and I shall do my best to implement it to the full —should know the precise status of each member. One of the difficulties of the clause is that different information can be given to the employer and to the trade union. I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for speaking for so long, but I was asked about something that I did not refer to in my speech.

Mr. Renton: That intervention was very helpful. The House will have understood the hon. Gentleman to mean that by and large he is prepared to support amendment (b),


subject to the clear proviso that both employer and trade union must know where they stand as far as the individual employee/trade unionist is concerned. Therefore, I suggest to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and to my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) that if, in particular, a potentially new member of a trade union signs a contracting-out form, it should be attached in duplicate to the membership form, so that one copy goes to the trade union and one to the employer. There would then be no question about where everyone stood.
As the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, with his knowledge of trade union affairs, will know, but as many hon. Members may not know, the employer shrinks from having any responsibility for knowing which employees have opted out of the political levy. The employer says quite easily that that is the trade union's responsibility. I have with me a letter from the Central Electricity Generating Board, which is a major employer in the public sector. It is dated 10 October, and it makes the point crystal clear. It says:
The Board has operated a 'check off' facility for many years whereby it deducts trade union subscriptions at source for employees at their request. The relevant trade unions notify the Board periodically of the subscription rates in operation including those for employees who do not pay one of the standard rates. It is a matter for the employee and his trade union to determine which rate he pays. The Board does not therefore need to identify employees who have opted out of the political levy for the purpose of deducting trade union subscriptions at source.
That is the nub of the argument. The company does not currently have responsibility for doing that, and it does not try to find out. It tells the trade unionist that, if he has opted out, he must seek recompense from his trade union. That may be made months or years in arrears. We want to correct that inequity.
In passing, as president of the CTU, I should say that I am very glad that some of my hon. Friends who are active in it have already spoken. As was made clear in the representations made to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment in May of last year on the Green Paper entitled "Democracy in the Trade Unions", we totally support the view that contributions to political funds should be by consent. Obviously that can be achieved by contracting in. We have already discussed that. However, it can also be achieved by making absolutely certain that those who have contracted out do not have to go on paying, and do not have to go to their trade union official once a month or once a quarter to make a political statement, saying "My employer refuses to cease deducting the political levy, and so I have to go to you once a quarter and ask for it back." That is clearly an injustice.

Mr. William McKelvey: rose——

Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman will be able to make his contribution in a minute if he so wishes. We wish to ensure that, when the employee or trade unionist has given notice of his wish to opt out, the employer does not continue to deduct the political levy. That is the nub of the argument. In suggesting that, we are quite simply asking my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to right a wrong that should have been righted a very long time ago. I hope that he will consider the new clause, appropriately amended, in that light.

Mr. Tom King: I have listened to the speeches of a number of hon. Members on this point, including those of my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner), who moved the new clause, and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) who spoke to the amendment to it. It may be helpful if I now make it clear that, while I could not accept the new clause unamended, I certainly accept that, as amended by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex, it amounts to a proposition that was referred to in the Green Paper. It identifies a situation that is quite unacceptable.
My hon. Friends will not be surprised to hear me say that, yet again, there are technical deficiencies in the drafting which make it impossible for me to accept the new clause and the amendment as they stand. I undertake, however, to redraft them so that the Government can table in another place an amendment—or, more probably, a new clause—which would seek to ensure that, where a member of a trade union has properly notified his employer that he has contracted out, it will no longer be lawful, as it is at the moment, for the employer to continue to check off the levy without any redress being available to that member.
Where a member has properly contracted out, and has so notified his employer, it will then not be lawful for the employer to continue to make deductions from his pay. I am sure that all my right hon. and hon. Friends are aware, as I am, of cases in which people who have felt strongly enough about the matter to seek to obtain remission have encountered considerable difficulties in getting their subscriptions back. There have been one or two exemplary illustrations of those difficulties. In one case, it took 10 years for a gentleman to recover his subscriptions. That is unacceptable.
I give my hon. Friends that assurance, and I hope that, on that basis, my hon. Friend will feel able to withdraw the motion at the appropriate moment.

Mr. John Smith: Clearly the Secretary of State has made a concession to his hon. Friends which will mean that there is unlikely to be a vote on the new clause tonight and that other proposals will be put forward in another place and will come back here for further consideration as a Lords amendment. I shall reserve my detailed judgment until the shape of the Secretary of State's proposal becomes apparent.
I have not myself been persuaded that it is necessary to change the law on the matter. The ink is hardly dry on the TUC's "Statement of Guidance", which was welcomed by the Secretary of State. Under paragraph 4 of that agreement, unions will ensure that
members who do not wish to pay the levy do not do so inadvertently (eg under check-off arrangements).
Clearly the question of changing the law was not focused upon very closely in the discussions with the TUC. It would be more sensible for the Secretary of State to rest, in this as in other matters, upon the undertakings given by the TUC in the "Statement of Guidance" than to rush to change the law. This appears to be a problem for the employers rather than anyone else. One wonders how efficient their systems can be, if they have to be so inflexible. To make an offence of a matter which should be dealt with by common sense seems to be going too far. However pressing the Secretary of State's political problems may be, he should not rush to change the law.


He should discuss the matter further either with the trade unions or with the employers before making hasty changes.

Mr. Gardiner: I thank my right hon. Friend for his undertaking. I hope that he is not dissuaded by the argument of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith). In view of his undertaking, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 9

MANAGEMENT OF POLITICAL FUND

'For subsection (1) of section 3 of the 1913 Act there shall be substituted—
If any trade union applies its funds in the furtherance of the political objects to which this section applies (without prejudice to the furtherance of any other political objects) rules shall be in force providing—

(a) That any payments in the furtherance of those objects are to be made out of a separate fund ( in this Act referred to as the political fund of the union).
(b) That any money in the political fund used in direct support of individual political parties or candidates shall be divided in proportion to the party preferences indicated by those members of the trade union who contribute to the fund.
(c) That a member who decides not to contribute to the political fund of the union shall not be excluded from any benefits of the union, or placed in any respect either directly or indirectly under any disability or at any disadvantage as compared with other members of the union (except in relation to the control or management of the political fund) by reason of his being so exempt, and that contribution to the political fund of the union shall not be made a condition for admission to the union.".'—[Mr. Penhaligon.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Penhaligon: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 9 introduces a new concept by which we might improve the financing of political parties and the use of political funds and make the funds more relevant to the parties that the unions choose to support. It provides that the portion of the money that is used for the promotion of party politics shall be divided among the parties in proportion to the sympathies of the members of the union. In other words, if 25 per cent. of the Transport and General Workers Union say that they wish to support the Conservative party, 25 per cent. of the money that is used for the promotion of political parties goes to the Conservative party. If 97·4 per cent. support the Labour party, that amount goes to that party. I am keen to support similar measures that apply to companies.
New clause 9 would improve politics in Britain. The level of financing of British political parties has not been dealt with much today, but I believe that it is inadequate. I sometimes think that British political parties do not have the facilities and resources that they ought to have when preparing themselves for government. New clause 9 would help to improve the financing of parties and politics. It would also improve the contact between the unions and political parties, which is not as strong as it should be. If we took similar steps for companies, that would improve the contact between companies and political parties. The mixing, joining and exploring of ideas by unions or companies and political parties would enhance and develop the level of debate, comprehension and feeling for

people's problems. I do not believe that any of us should be satisfied with the present level of British politics, as involvement in and financing of it are inadequate.
I listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) on new clause 6. I agreed when he said that unions' political funds were too small. New clause 9 could encourage them to increase substantially because the system would be seen to be fair and the members of trade unions would see that they had an influence in the political spectrum.
The hon. Gentleman also said that working-class people want to send representatives to Parliament and to have an influence on it. I agree, but I do not accept the assumption of Labour Members that working-class views can be expressed only through the Labour party. That is manifestly untrue. I conclude that either the majority of trade unionists are something other than working class or that a large minority want their views to be expressed by representatives who are members of parties other than the Labour party. That is a straight mathematical fact.
The general election made that point more strongly than any election in the past 20 or 30 years. The opinion polls might not be accurate, but nearly all of them came to a similar conclusion. About 39 per cent. of trade unionists voted Labour. That was a bad year for Labour. I suspect that during the past 15 or 20 years that figure has been higher, but it has never been anything approaching 100 per cent. I can find no evidence of its having reached even two thirds. Therefore, there is clearly a substantial minority of trade union members whose politics are other than Labour. At the election a significant majority of trade union members wished to be represented in the House by hon. Members in parties other than Labour.
I cannot believe that 472 hon. Members are satisfied with the present way in which we finance politics. I have been a Member of the House for 10 years. You have been a Member of the House for somewhat longer, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I cannot recall a Division when more than 472 voted in favour of anything. That would be a new record of consensus in the House on the basis of, "I will not look in your cupboard if you will not look in mine."
This is an opportunity for the House to put the political levy on what most trade union members would recognise as a sensible basis, if they were given a ballot on it. If they do not want to support a party other than the Labour party, it is their privilege so to do, but they should have an alternative. To be fair, the amendment must apply to companies as well. The logic is that it should be done on both sides. I offer the new clause to the House towards 1 o'clock in the morning. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) keeps making criticisms, but I do not recognise the hon. Gentleman; he has rot been present for most of the debates.
I offer the new clause to the House for consideration and debate. It could help towards achieving an improvement in politics in Britain and prove to be the meeting of the various factions that dominate our politics.

Mr. Gale: I should like to give some support, but not complete support, to the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon). He raised the matter on Second Reading in November. He may recall that at the time I also offered him some support in saying that I believed, as he did, that a majority of the trade union movement no longer supported the Labour party. That fact was demonstrated in numerous opinion polls supporting exactly the


legislation brought before the House tonight. It was also demonstrated emphatically at the general election last year.
The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) was asked on Second Reading, as he was asked repeatedly today, what justification he had for saying that the majority of trade union members would wish to contribute to Labour party funds. No such evidence has been forthcoming. Therefore, there is a case to be made for saying that there should a division of funds. In that respect I agree with the hon. Member for Truro.
However, as a trade union member, I do not believe that this is a matter for legislation. I believe that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has secured satisfactory agreement from the TUC and there is now the possibility of legislation that will give the trade union member the right and ease to opt out of the political levy. That being so, it is my view that any trade union member who wishes to do so should now exercise that right, opt out of the political levy and, if he chooses to do so, privately contribute to any political party of his persuasion.

Mr. Holt: I have long held the view that Liberals have a policy for each day of the week and for every person to whom they speak. Paragraph (b) of the new clause makes clear how out of touch with the reality of dealing with people in the workplace the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) is. He suggests that any money in the political fund should be used in direct proportion to the party preference of the members of the union who have contributed to the fund. That would preclude floating voters and would prevent a change of mind for all time.
The new clause reflects a lack of reality. It would be a stupid proposal to make at any time, but it could have been made in Committee. However, the hon. Gentleman was absent from the Committee for nine times as many hours as he was present. Consequently, he did not learn the little that he would have picked up from listening to the contributions of Labour and Conservative Members which were directed to trade unions and trade union management.
management.
This mischievous clause is designed to secure some little blessing to the Liberal party at a late stage in our consideration of the Bill. The Liberals are ineffective in every way, and the clause underlines the fact that they are

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): I must take issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) on the political levy. When I was a more regular attender of my trade union's meetings I used to pay the levy. I paid it because I realised that if I and others ceased to do so the control of the fund would pass entirely into the hands of those who held political views with which I profoundly disapproved and who had aspirations that, in many instances, left me thoroughly contemptuous.
It was extremely useful to be in a position in which it was possible to argue against the madder uses of the fund. It is worth remembering that in many unions the political levy is not automatically attached to the Labour party. In many instances only a comparatively small proportion of the levy is contributed to political parties. It is used for a variety of political purposes which have nothing to do, necessarily, with the support of a particular political party.
Active members of trade unions who regularly attend branch meetings can do much worse than subscribe to the levy. If they keep an eye on the purposes for which it is used, they will often be able to influence their branches to make much better use of the moneys.
I have some sympathy with the argument of the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) only because it would be much more satisfactory for those who are sharply against the Labour party if the political levy were distributed among other political parties. However, that is a wholly impractical proposition and there is little likelihood that such a scheme could be implemented. If we are active trade unionists, we must ensure that we attend branch meetings and persuade our fellow trade unionists to accept a view that the majority of trade unionists accept, which is that there are political parties that will represent them more effectively than the Labour party.

Mr. Alan Clark: The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) moved the new clause in a rather specious manner. It is completely unacceptable, for it goes far beyond the principles established in the 1913 Act. It would impose heavy administrative and expenditure burdens on trade unions, which is not part of the purpose of the Bill. It would oblige them to become the collecting agents for political parties, which is no part of our objective.
I understand the motivation behind the clause. The Liberal party has decided that it is time that it got its hands on some of the money that has been so readily available from this source, the political fund. It has devised a method of doing so that embodies the curious anomaly that the clause, if it were accepted, would remove the need for trade unions to consult their members on the establishment or continuation of the political fund. If they would content themselves with the fact that they were getting a piece of the action, they would not bother any longer whether it was with the consent of the members or not that the political fund existed.
I entirely agree with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale). If individual trade unionists want to contribute in proportion to different political parties, they have a very simple solution—simply to contract out and subscribe in the ordinary way as ordinary citizens do.
The 1913 Act did not tell trade unions how they should spend their money, whether on political matters or anything else, and it is not our intention to start to do so now.

Mr. Evans: Paragraph (b) is the heart of the new clause moved by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon), and I am sure that I am not alone in regarding it as a nauseating new clause. We listened earlier to the hon. Member for Truro denouncing the collection of the political fund as a fraud, and he made a great deal of play about unions such as the Transport and General Workers Union——

Mr. Penhaligon: A fiddle.

Mr. Evans: I am sorry—a fiddle. There is not much difference between a fraud and a fiddle, is there? I withdraw the word "fraud" and substitute 'the word "fiddle". The hon. Member attacked unions such as the National Union of Public Employees.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) poured hatred and contempt on the trade union


movement and all its works. However, it appears that all the high principles about attacking the political funds and attacking trade unions for their links with the Labour party disappear when apparently the Liberals can get their hands on some of the money. It appears that their principles are not very high.
It is a bit much for the Social Democrats to support the new clause. The hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt), in a telling contribution, made a valid point about floating voters. He was also accurate when he said that the matter should have been raised and discussed in Committee.
It is always very difficult to work out precisely how much time an individual Member spends in Committee. Suffice it to say that on part III of the Bill we had eight votes. The hon. Member for Truro was present for none of them, and the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth), representing the Social Democratic party, managed to be present for one vote. The rest of their attendance in Committee was on a par with that.
The links between the Labour party and the trade union movement are well understood by everyone in Britain, even by those who oppose them. We in the Labour party are proud of those links. We are proud of the financial links that exist between the trade unions and ourselves and we want to retain and strengthen them.
Those are the facts, and it is obvious that the Liberal and Social Democratic party alliance has neither principle nor consistency in relation to the new clause that it has moved. The truth is that it wants to get its hands on some of the brass. For that reason, I hope that the whole House will join in killing this ridiculous new clause stone dead.

Mr. Penhaligon: I am now more encouraged than I was. It has been said that we want the money. I do not deny that. We want only what people are willing to give us, just like any other party in this House. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) says that the whole thing will fall down administratively because of what will happen when people want to change their minds. Under the new system in which the Government have so much faith, people will contract in and out. I presume that it is as possible to float in and out of the Labour party as it is to float between the Labour party, the Social Democratic party, the Conservative party, and so on.
I am glad that the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) noticed that the new clause would not abolish the ballot. I think that the best solution is to have political funds set up but to require that people have to contract in. Under the system that the Government are pushing through, 51 per cent. of trade unionists might vote against a political fund and 49 per cent. for a fund, and that 49 per cent.—which could be a lot of people in the big unions—would be denied an opportunity to make a contribution.
Therefore, I offer to the House a solution that should please the Labour party, because it would make it easy to set up a political fund, and would enable the amount contributed to political parties to reflect the support for those parties. I am confident that the new clause will receive overwhelming support.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 12, Noes 436.

Division No. 219]
[12.55 am


AYES


Alton, David
Freud, Clement


Ashdown, Paddy
Howells, Geraint


Beith, A. J.
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)





Kennedy, Charles
Wallace, James


Kirkwood, Archibald



Penhaligon, David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Mr. Michael Meadowcroft and Mr. John Cartwright.


Steel, Rt Hon David





NOES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Aitken, Jonathan
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Alexander, Richard
Clarke, Thomas


Amess, David
Clay, Robert


Ancram, Michael
Cockeram, Eric


Anderson, Donald
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)


Ashby, David
Cohen, Harry


Aspinwall, Jack
Coleman, Donald


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Colvin, Michael


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Conway, Derek


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Cook, Frank (Stockton North)


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Coombs, Simon


Baldry, Anthony
Cope, John


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Corbyn, Jeremy


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Corrie, John


Barnett, Guy
Couchman, James


Barron, Kevin
Cowans, Harry


Batiste, Spencer
Craigen, J. M.


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Cranborne, Viscount


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Crouch, David


Bellingham, Henry
Crowther, Stan


Bendall, Vivian
Cunningham, Dr John


Benn, Tony
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)


Bermingham, Gerald
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)


Berry, Sir Anthony
Deakins, Eric


Bevan, David Gilroy
Dixon, Donald


Bidwell, Sydney
Dobson, Frank


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Dormand, Jack


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Dorrell, Stephen


Blair, Anthony
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Dover, Den


Body, Richard
Dubs, Alfred


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Duffy, A. E. P.


Bottomley, Peter
Dunn, Robert


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Durant, Tony


Boyes, Roland
Dykes, Hugh


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Eadie, Alex


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Eastham, Ken


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Bright, Graham
Eggar, Tim


Brinton, Tim
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Evennett, David


Brooke, Hon Peter
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Fallon, Michael


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Farr, John


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Fatchett, Derek


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Faulds, Andrew


Bruinvels, Peter
Favell, Anthony


Bryan, Sir Paul
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)


Buck, Sir Antony
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Budgen, Nick
Fisher, Mark


Burt, Alistair
Flannery, Martin


Butcher, John
Fletcher, Alexander


Butterfill, John
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Caborn, Richard
Forman, Nigel


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Forth, Eric


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Foster, Derek


Canavan, Dennis
Foulkes, George


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Fox, Marcus


Carttiss, Michael
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Freeman, Roger


Chapman, Sydney
Fry, Peter


Chope, Christopher
Gale, Roger


Churchill, W. S.
Galley, Roy


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Garel-Jones, Tristan






Garrett, W. E.
Leadbitter, Ted


George, Bruce
Lee, John (Pendle)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Godman, Dr Norman
Leighton, Ronald


Golding, John
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Goodlad, Alastair
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Gorst, John
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Gould, Bryan
Lightbown, David


Gower, Sir Raymond
Lilley, Peter


Grant, Sir Anthony
Litherland, Robert


Greenway, Harry
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Gregory, Conal
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Grist, Ian
Lord, Michael


Ground, Patrick
Loyden, Edward


Gummer, John Selwyn
Lyell, Nicholas


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
McCartney, Hugh


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
McCrindle, Robert


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Hampson, Dr Keith
Macfarlane, Neil


Hanley, Jeremy
MacGregor, John


Hannam, John
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Hardy, Peter
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Harris, David
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
McKelvey, William


Haselhurst, Alan
Maclean, David John


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)
McTaggart, Robert


Hawksley, Warren
McWilliam, John


Hayes, J.
Madden, Max


Haynes, Frank
Madel, David


Hayward, Robert
Major, John


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Malins, Humfrey


Heddle, John
Malone, Gerald


Henderson, Barry
Maples, John


Hickmet, Richard
Marek, Dr John


Hicks, Robert
Marland, Paul


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Marlow, Antony


Hill, James
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Hind, Kenneth
Martin, Michael


Hirst, Michael
Mates, Michael


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Mather, Carol


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Maude, Hon Francis


Holt, Richard
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Home Robertson, John
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Hooson, Tom
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Howard, Michael
Meacher, Michael


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Mellor, David


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Merchant, Piers


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Michie, William


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Mikardo, Ian


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Hunter, Andrew
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Miscampbell, Norman


Jackson, Robert
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)


Janner, Hon Greville
Moate, Roger


Jessel, Toby
Montgomery, Fergus


John, Brynmor
Moore, John


Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)


Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Moynihan, Hon C.


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Mudd, David


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Murphy, Christopher


Key, Robert
Neale, Gerrard


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Nellist, David


King, Rt Hon Tom
Nelson, Anthony


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Neubert, Michael


Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)
Newton, Tony


Knowles, Michael
Nicholls, Patrick


Knox, David
Normanton, Tom


Lamont, Norman
Norris, Steven


Lang, Ian
O'Brien, William


Lawler, Geoffrey
O'Neill, Martin


Lawrence, Ivan
Oppenheim, Philip





Ottaway, Richard
Spencer, Derek


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Parris, Matthew
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Parry, Robert
Squire, Robin


Patchett, Terry
Stanbrook, Ivor


Patten, John (Oxford)
Stanley, John


Pavitt, Laurie
Stern, Michael


Pawsey, James
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Pendry, Tom
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Pike, Peter
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Pink, R. Bonner
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Pollock, Alexander
Stott, Roger


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Powell, William (Corby)
Strang, Gavin


Powley, John
Straw, Jack


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Prescott, John
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Proctor, K. Harvey
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Radice, Giles
Terlezki, Stefan


Raffan, Keith
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Randall, Stuart
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Rathbone, Tim
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Redmond, M.
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)
Tinn, James


Renton, Tim
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Rhodes James, Robert
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Tracey, Richard


Richardson, Ms Jo
Trippier, David


Rifkind, Malcolm
Trotter, Neville


Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Twinn, Dr Ian


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Robertson, George
Viggers, Peter


Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Waddington, David


Roe, Mrs Marion
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Rogers, Allan
Waldegrave, Hon William


Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)
Walden, George


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Rowe, Andrew
Wall, Sir Patrick


Rowlands, Ted
Waller, Gary


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Ward, John


Ryder, Richard
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Sackville, Hon Thomas
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Wareing, Robert


Sayeed, Jonathan
Watson, John


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Watts, John


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Weetch, Ken


Sheerman, Barry
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Welsh, Michael


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wheeler, John


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Whitney, Raymond


Shersby, Michael
Wiggin, Jerry


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Wilkinson, John


Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)
Winnick, David


Sims, Roger
Wolfson, Mark


Skeet, T. H. H.
Wood, Timothy


Skinner, Dennis
Woodall, Alec


Smith, C. (Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)
Woodcock, Michael


Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)
Yeo, Tim


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Snape, Peter
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Soames, Hon Nicholas



Spearing, Nigel
Tellers for the Noes:


Speed, Keith
Mr. Robert Boscawen and Mr. Archie Hamilton.


Speller, Tony

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 10

TRADE UNION RULES IN RELATION TO BALLOTS

Amendments made: No. 30, in page 13, line 3, leave out
'of the 1913 Act (as read with subsection (1) above)'
and insert


`or section 5(1) of that Act (rules relating to giving to members of notice of right to be exempt from contributing to political fund)'.

No. 31, in page 13, line 6, after `4(1)' insert
`or, as the case may be, 5(1)'.

No. 32, in page 13, line 18, after first 'union',
insert (a)'.

No. 33, in page 13, line 21, at end insert
; and
(b) rules made by the union for the purposes of complying with section 5(1) of the 1913 Act may provide for notice not to be given by the union to its overseas members.'.

No. 34, in page 13, line 22, after 'applies', insert
`(a) in a case where rules have been made by virtue of paragraph (a) of subsection (5)'.

No. 35, in page 13, line 26, at end insert
, and
(b) in a case where rules have been made by virtue of paragraph (b) of subsection (5), section 5(1) of the 1913 Act shall be taken not to require notice to be given by the union to its overseas members.'.

No. 36, in page 13, line 26, at end insert—
'(6A) Where, following a notice given by a trade union under subsection (1) of section 5 of the 1913 Act on the passing of a new resolution. a member of the union gives notice of his objection to contribute to the political fund of the union, subsection (2) of that section (effective date of exemption) shall have effect as if the words from "or, in the case" to the end were omitted. '.

No. 37, in page 13, line 27, after 'section' insert—
'"new resolution", in relation to a trade union, means a resolution passed on a ballot held at a time when a resolution is in force in respect of that union; and'.—[Mr. Alan Clark.]

Clause 11

ASSETS AND LIABILITIES OF POLITICAL FUND

Amendment made: No. 38, in page 13, line 39, after `(a)', insert
`subject to section 12(4A) of this Act,'.—[Mr. Alan Clark.]

Clause 12

POSITION WHERE RESOLUTION HAS CEASED TO HAVE EFFECT

Amendment made: No. 39, in page 14, line 42, at end insert—
'(4A) Where a resolution has ceased to have effect, any contributions to the political fund paid to the union or to any person on behalf of the union, before the date of cessation, may be paid into the political fund notwithstanding section 11(2)(a) of this Act.'.—[Mr. Alan Clark.]

Clause 13

REMEDY FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH S. 12(3)(a)

Amendments made: No. 14, in page 16, line 2, leave out
`is a member of the union at the appropriate time'
and insert
`satisfies the requirements of subsection (4) below'.

No. 15, in page 16, line 5, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
'(4) The requirements are that—

(a) he is a member of the union at the time when proceedings to enforce obedience to the order are begun; and
(b) he was such a member at the time when the order was made.'.—[Mr. Alan Clark.]

Clause 15

POLITICAL OBJECTS

Mr. Alan Clark: I beg to move amendment No. 40, in page 17, line 1, leave out from beginning to 'any' in line 2 and insert—

'(e) on the holding of any conference or meeting by or on behalf of a political party or of.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 41.

Mr. Evans: Amendment No. 40 refers to questions that I raised in Committee about those members of trade unions who would be lobbying at, for instance, a party conference, where they would be seeking to impress upon delegates their views on political subjects. Is there any difference between this amendment and that which we moved in Committee which sought to delete the words, "in connection with" and substitute the words, "on the holding of'? I am sure that there is no significance in this, but will the Minister tell us why he could not accept our amendment in Committee and why he has had to extend the wording? I am only seeking information.

Mr. Alan Clark: I can put the hon. Gentleman's mind at rest. There is no special magic in the phraseology that we have chosen. The amendment is designed to meet the concern that the Opposition expressed in Committee that the clause should cover the expenses of observers and lobbyists at party conferences who might legitimately be sent there by unions which do not have political funds.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 41, in page 17, line 11, at end insert—
'(3A) Where a person attends a conference or meeting as a delegate or otherwise as a participator in the proceedings, any expenditure incurred in connection with his attendance as such shall, for the purposes of subsection (3)(e) above, be taken to be expenditure incurred on the holding of the conference or meeting. '—[Mr. Alan Clark.]

Bill to be read the Third time this day.

Orders of the Day — STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

CIVIL AVIATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 79(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.)
That the draft Carriage by Air Acts (Application of Provisions) (Overseas Territories) (Amendment) Order 1984, which was laid before this House on 27th February, be approved—[Mr. Lang.]

Question agreed to.

FISHERIES

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 79(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.)
That the Fish Farming (Financial Assistance) Scheme 1984 (S.I., 1984, No. 341), dated 12th March 1984, a copy of which was laid before this House on 14th March, be approved. —[Mr. Lang.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — INSHORE FISHING (SCOTLAND) BILL [LORDS]

Order for Second reading read.

Ordered,


That the Bill be committed to a Scottish Standing Committee—[Mr. Lang.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That—
(1) for the remainder of this Session Standing Order No. 6 (Arrangement of public business) shall apply with the substitution in lines 12 and 13, respectively, of the word `three' for the word `two' and the word 'six' for the word `four'; and
(2) at tomorrow's sitting, proceedings on the business selected under paragraph (2) of that Order shall lapse at Seven o'clock, if not previously concluded, and shall count as a half day as therein provided; and any Motion for the adjournment of the House in the name of the Prime Minister may be proceeded with, though opposed, until Twelve o'clock.—[Mr. Lang.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Western Isles

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lang.]

Mr. Donald Stewart: The Western Isles islands council has been put in the most difficult financial position in its history as a result of the Government's policies on rates and rate support grant. Following a settlement last year which was in itself inadequate, the total amount of money available for rate support grant distribution for 1984–85 is less in cash terms than it was for 1983–84.
I am grateful to hon. Members from other parties who have interested themselves in the disastrous position in which the islands council has found itself. The hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) travelled to Stornoway and took part with me in a meeting. His hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) has helped by approaching the Secretary of State. The hon. Members for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Johnston) and for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) have also assisted.
The Western Isles are the most deprived area in the United Kingdom. That was the finding of the EEC, which decided to inaugurate an integrated development programme on that basis. Unemployment at the end of February was nearly 23 per cent. Other areas of the United Kingdom are now claiming that with 20 per cent. unemployment they are in a difficult situation, but that is something with which we have lived for decades.
Because of public expenditure plans, relevant expenditure will rise by only 2·4 per cent. in Scotland for 1984–85 to 1985–86—a cut in real terms. The Western Isles islands council guideline was artificially adjusted by £300,000. The revenue expenditure guideline next year will be £750,000 less in real terms than the reduced budget for the current year. The total cuts in the Western Isles are in the region of £2·25 million. As a result, the most horrific reduction in essential services has been forced on the local authority.
Budgets have been cut by amounts ranging from 8 to 12 per cent. Let me spell out some of them. Education has been cut by £900,000, transportation by £400,000, central services by £450,000, social work by £300,000, environmental services by £160,000 and development by £75,000, making a total of more than £2·25 million.
In education, the three nursery schools in the Western Isles, catering for 170 children, will be closed. The Ministry of Defence will have some concern about the nursery school in Benbecula, as children of MOD personnel are subjected to frequent changes of schooling.
The Nicholson institute, the only six-year secondary school in the islands, which has disproportionately large numbers in the third and fourth years, is particularly affected by the Munn and Dunning reforms. The four extra teachers cannot now be appointed, and the staff has been cut by a further five teachers, making a shortfall of nine teachers in staffing for 1984–85. In addition, all schools in the Western Isles have had to take a 70 per cent. cut in requisition. This cut, if maintained, will cause schools to run out of essential materials, even paper and jotters, before Christmas 1984, and, in some cases, much earlier.
In Munn and Dunning the Government are pushing through a major reform in education and are not providing the resources to reach the target.
The cuts in social work will operate in an area which has doubled the mainland figure for persons over 65. In the islands, one in four is over 65, as against the Scottish mainland figure of one in eight. The human problems arising from these cuts will be obvious. The council has been obliged to charge £1·50 per week, irrespective of means, as a levy on all recipients of home help.
We have 700 miles of roads, of which only 80 miles are even double track. The problems of cuts in this area will be disastrous. Many roads will not be considered for improvement this century.
The paradox of the islands' position is that many of the most acute problems could have been alleviated, at least to some degree, if the client group method had been adopted for the distribution of the needs element of rate support grant. While the council does not accept that the assessed expenditure need for the council is entirely adequate, it is at least moving in the right direction, and, if it had been given effect to, the council's share of needs element would have been £1·25 million more than is provided.
As it is, the rates have been raised from £1·41 in the pound to £1·52 in the pound, one of the highest rates in Scotland. How do the Government regard that when compared to an expenditure of £1 million per day in the Falkland Islands, with a population of 1,800 against 31,000? We are being forced into a situation similar to that of Liverpool. This is being done to the poorest region in Scotland. The Secretary of State informed me that he cannot produce finance to alleviate the position. I hope that the Minister can at least take the position to heart and state categorically that, for the next financial year, the council can look to a level of assistance that will allow the islands to enjoy a civilised level of essential services.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Ancram): I am pleased to be able to reply to this debate, although at perhaps a later hour than either the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) or I should have wished. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the difficult decision that the Western Isles council has had to take in deciding on its expenditure and rates for 1984–85. I accept that the islanders face difficulties—this is generally accepted—and it has faced problems in coming to its decisions. It is widely recognised, not least by the Government, that there are special problems that affect a small, scattered islands authority such as this. I hope that in my remarks I shall demonstrate clearly that the Government have taken, and shall continue to take, due account of these various factors. It is predictable that the right hon. Gentleman and the authority have sought to blame central Government policy for the difficulties with which they are faced. However, I do not believe that the case for doing so stands up to examination.
Before I speak about the local authority matters, which are the main purpose of the debate, it is right that I should refer to the scope of Government support for the Western Isles generally. As the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, in September 1982 the Government introduced the integrated development programme for the Western Isles, and this is a positive response by the Government, with

some EEC assistance, to the economic and structural problems that face the people of the Western Isles. During the five years of the programme, £20 milliom of public expenditure will be invested in agriculture and fisheries. To put things in perspective, as it is important that we do, that is over three times as much as the likely take-up of existing measures in the same period. The programme also envisages spending by public authorities of around £36 million on infrastructure and other activities such as tourism.
Expenditure by the Highlands and Islands Development Board in 1983–84 is expected to be £1·15 million, and in 1984–85 £3·4 million. On shipping services, Caledonian MacBrayne has been given investment approval and has now placed a contract for a new vessel to replace the Hebrides on the Uig-Tarbert-Lochmaddy route. The new ship will be full roll-on/roll-off and will cost £5·5 million. Further expenditure on adapting the three terminals and on associated works will cost a further £5 million, and this new expenditure wil provide an increased service——

Mr. Martin J. O'Neill: How much of this money is coming from the EEC and how much is coming from the Government, as distinct from any money that the Scottish Office would have to provide? There is a widespread suspicion that all of the talk about EEC funding is about money that would have come from the Scottish Office anyway, and the money is not much more than what the Scottish Office would have had to pay to meet its obligations to the HIDB.

Mr. Ancram: My understanding is that the Community's farm fund, the FEOGA, will refund 40 per cent. of eligible expenditure, with a limit of £8 million on the Community contribution. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that answer.
I was talking about the general amounts of money other than that, and the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I have moved on to the other points. This major expenditure will provide a vastly improved service to Lewis, Harris and North Uist and overcome long-standing frustrations arising from the existing vessel. It should encourage round-trip tourism to Lewis and Harris, and that will benefit those communities. I give those points as examples of initiatives taken to assist the Western Isles.
The Government contribute significantly to the cost of the day-to-day services provided by the local authority. This contribution must, however, be seen in the context of our policy of securing reductions in the level of local authority expenditure for broader economic reasons. This policy, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, has been pursued in various ways—for instance, selective action against authorities whose expenditure is excessive and unreasonable. There are signs that some authorities are making the necessary reductions.
The annual central Government grant towards the cost of local authority services comprises two types. One is paid at a given percentage of expenditure incurred on certain services, and the best example is the grant given to the police. The rules governing these grants apply to all authorities. The other, and by far the largest, is a general grant—the rate support grant—which is paid in aid of the whole of an authority's revenues. The distribution of rate support grant has regard to the level of rateable value per head of population in each local authority area and the variations in demand for, and the costs of providing, local


authority services in different areas. Given this, it is hardly surprising that the Western Isles receive a very large amount of rate support grant relative to population. In 1984–85, it is £760 per head of population. That is about £430 per head more than the Scottish average and is the highest of any authority in Scotland.
These figures take account of the change in the basis of the distribution of the needs element of rate support grant for 1984–85. The new method, which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, known as the client group approach, is fully explained in the report on the Rate Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1984. In summary, the essential aim of the approach is to estimate the relative expenditure needs of authorities by taking into account variations in the demand for services and the cost of providing them with a similar degree of efficiency. I listened to what the right hon. Gentleman said about that method, because account is taken of exceptional factors affecting the cost of local authority services in the Western Isles. For instance, full allowance is made for the remoteness payments to teachers and islands allowances to all staff. The Western Isles' authorities are among those to benefit from the allowance made, mainly in education, in respect of the additional costs falling on rural areas.
The new approach is widely considered to be a fairer basis for grant distribution than the demographic formula used in the past. Contrary to the claims of the authority and the right hon. Gentleman, that approach has benefited the Western Isles. The grant payable for 1984–85 is higher in cash by some £30,000 than in 1983–84. Had the previous method of distribution been maintained — this was forcefully suggested by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities—the authority would have received about £150,000 less in grant than in 1983–84. The fact that we took the decision to change to the new system in part has benefited the Western Isles in a way it would not have done had we accepted COSLA's advice.
Comment has been made about the phasing in of the new method of grant distribution. It has been suggested that the Western Isles is receiving £1·3 million less than would otherwise be the case because of this action. This major change—this must be understood—in the basis of grant distribution implies increases in grant for some authorities and corresponding decreases for others. It is understandable that individual authorities should look only at their position, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has properly considered the effects of the change upon all authorities. This clear view, shared by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, with whom my right hon. Friend had extensive discussions about local government finance, was that, as on earlier occasions when there were major changes in distribution, sudden large reductions in grant for some authorities which stood to lose should be avoided.

Mr. O'Neill: We are talking about a part of the United Kingdom which requires in global terms only a relatively small amount of money. The Secretary of State is not that well known for his willingness to agree with the wishes of COSLA. This is an occasion on which the general rule could have been broken, and it could have provided an opportunity to improve the living conditions of a group of people in our islands who are living near the breadline and

who are now being forced into extreme poverty by what can only be regarded as the Government's indifference to the islands' needs.
Is the Minister not prepared, even at this late hour, to think again and provide for the disadvantaged sections of our islands some degree of support, even if it were assisted by increased rates in the islands, to help the people who are at present defenceless against the ravages of what would seem to be Government deviousness, sophistry and a completely Jesuitic approach to the funding of local government?

Mr. Ancram: Rates are a matter for the local authority. The hon. Gentleman's intervention shows, as I guessed, that he does not understand local government finance.
If we have a system of distribution, it is on the basis of the system that existed, the one that we wish to introduce or a phased system which moves from one to the other. If I accepted the hon. Gentleman's advice, some authorities would have suddenly found that there would be a considerable drop in the revenue available to them, and that would have caused them difficulties. Some of those authorities are not far from the hon. Gentleman's heart normally. It does not lie well in his mouth to make special pleas without taking account of the knock-on effect it would have had on some other Scottish communities which also feel that they have particular difficulties.
When grants for particular services are included, the Government pay 85 per cent. of the day-to-day expenditure of the council on all services except for housing, for which there are separate arrangements. This is not an isolated figure for a single year but is broadly consistent over time. This again is by far the highest level of support of any authority in Scotland, where grant for authorities generally is about 60 per cent. of relevant expenditure. If the hon. Member for Clackmannan wishes to enter a debate of this sort, he should perhaps apply for one.
It is practice to issue to each local authority an indicative current expenditure guideline. This is intended to help authorities to plan expenditure compatible with the total figure considered appropriate by the Secretary of State. The guideline for Western Isles for 1984–85 is £22·394 million, some 16 per cent. more in cash than the guideline for 1983–84 and equivalent to £711 per head of population. I understand that the council's planned expenditure is some £162,000 or 0·7 per cent. above this figure.
Reference has been made to the reductions in expenditure planned by Western Isles. On the basis of returns made by the authority, it appears that, after a number of years during which expenditure—excluding loan charges—has increased in real terms after account is taken of inflation, the authority intends to spend about the same amount in cash in 1984–85 as last year. This points to some savings by the authority, perhaps by improved efficiency or increases in charges for some services and lower levels of service. As the right hon. Member is aware even if the hon. Member for Clackmannan is not, it is for the authority to determine the level of its expenditure and priorities between services. In reaching its judgment it knows the level of Government grants, which in Western Isles, as I have said, is the highest of any authority in Scotland, and it has to weigh carefully, as does every local authority, the need for


services and the level of rates to be levied. Expenditure on services in 1984–85 is about £716 per head of population, which is exceeded only by Shetland, where there are exceptional circumstances associated with oil developments. The right hon. Member for Western Isles mentioned rates. He has quite correctly said that the rate for 1984–85 is the highest of any authority in Scotland. But the amount that an individual ratepayer has to pay also depends upon the rateable value of his property, which —again, as the right hon. Gentleman knows—is low in the Western Isles relative to other authorities, reflecting circumstances in the area. As a result—and the level of rate poundage must be seen in context—the average domestic rate bill in the Western Isles is £3.30 per week, compared with the average for Scotland of £6.29 per week.
I turn briefly to capital expenditure. The allocations issued to the authority for 1984–85 permit expenditure on housing of £7·395 million, an increase of £1·065 million or nearly 17 per cent. over estimated expenditure by the authority in 1983–84. In anyone's book, that increase must be welcomed in the islands and by the right hon. Gentleman. For services other than housing, the allocation is £6·935 million, which is again a cash increase over the 1983–84 allocation, of £630,000 or 10 per cent. Again, I hope that that figure is welcomed by the right hon. Gentleman and by the islands.

Mr. Donald Stewart: What about the Falklands?

Mr. Ancram: I assume that the right hon. Gentleman is not inviting me to consider a second military airport on his islands. But, if he is, I am prepared to pass on his request for consideration by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. However, he must talk about the Falklands, if that is his wish, in context.
These figures very clearly show that the Government continue To provide very high levels of support to the Western Isles from public funds. In the light of that, and although I appreciate the severe difficulties faced by such a council, I must firmly refute any suggestion that the blame for these problems can be placed at the door of the Government. As to future years, consultations with the convention have already begun leading to the rate support grant settlement for 1985–86. Any points that the Western Isles wish to be taken into account should be made known to the Scottish Office, preferably through the convention, with which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State discusses matters of local authority finance.

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: Will my hon. Friend understand that there are many parts of Scotland that face equal difficulties and an equal lack of

services and which would be absolutely delighted to get the subventions? We are very grateful that the Government have been so generous and very doubtful about the Opposition whingers.

Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for that point.
With those figures I have demonstrated that the particular problems faced by the Western Isles are recognised in the distribution of RSG that we make and in the capital allocations.

Mr. O'Neill: rose——

Mr. Ancram: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. Last time I gave way he made more of a speech than an intervention. He should go back and ask COSLA about local government finance. Before intervening in such a debate, he should understand how local government finance works and should he aware that he is asking for much more severe reductions to be made in the expenditure available to other authorities, including those for which he often claims to speak.
I cannot accept the strictures of the right hon. Member for Western Isles. We have recognised the problems faced by the islanders and we shall continue to recognise them. The manner of our response will mean that those problems can be contained. We have made provision which recognises the special nature of the problems in relation to those of other authorities.
I talked earlier about the phasing in of the client group approach. The right hon. Gentleman may feel disappointed, as other councils do, that the change was not made completely in the current year, but I have explained why that was not done. The meaning of phasing is that each year we shall move nearer to the complete client group approach. If the right hon. Gentleman holds to the view that he has taken tonight, I hope that he will make representations to his friends in the convention about the need, if there be one, to move faster to the complete client group approach than the Government have decided this year.
We will continue to meet our responsibilities to the Western Isles. They remain, in our view, an essential and integral part of Scotland. We will try to meet their special needs as we try to meet the needs of every area in Scotland. Nothing in the figures that I have given tonight would cause me to doubt that the Government are committed to ensuring that the problems of the Western Isles are properly met.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes to Two o' clock.